Legal Opinion
Stump v. 209 East 56th St. Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 9, 1995PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 1, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) for leave to conduct preaction discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Although CPLR 3102 (c) authorizes discovery to allow a plaintiff to obtain the identity of the prospective defendants, it cannot be used by a prospective plaintiff to determine whether he has a cause of action (Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 939). Rather, it is only available where the moving party demonstrates that he has a meritorious cause of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stewart v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Bliss v. JaffinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Lowinger v. JacquesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by6 opinions
- Holzman v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- In re CohenNew York Supreme Court · 2009
- Matter of Camara v. Skanska, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Public Relations Society of America, Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed OnlineNew York Supreme Court · 2005
- In re DavisNew York Court of Claims · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.