Legal Opinion
Hinrichs v. Tonnssen
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 1985PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Stanley Harwood, J.
Motion by plaintiff for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 is denied. The concomitant cross motion for an order compelling plaintiff to comply with defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection is granted.
Defendant has served what he has labeled a “Notice for Discovery & Inspection”. Four of the five items to be produced for such discovery however are “duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations” for release of (a) employment records, (b) physician’s “notes and records”, (c) hospital records, and (d) plaintiff’s “no-fault” records “with…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Montgomery v. DanielsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Koump v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Vernet v. GilbertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Agricultural & Industrial Corp. v. Chemical BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Scott v. AlbordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceNassau County District Court · 2006