Legal Opinion

Menkes v. Beth Abraham Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 29, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in grant*648ing the motion, as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought from the former director could not be obtained from other sources, such as the nursing home’s own records (see Connolly v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 81 AD3d 530, 531 [2011]; Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 15, 16-17 [2010]). In view of the foregoing, we need not determine whether the disclosure sought is material and necessary. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kooper v. KooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  2. Connolly v. Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Financial Structures Ltd. v. UBS AGAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. Financial Structures Ltd. v. UBS AGAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  3. Schorr v. SchorrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  4. Schorr v. SchorrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014