From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fonda v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

January 27, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Donovan, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: On its motion for a protective order, defendant, a fire insurance company, failed to sustain its burden of showing that the report of its investigator was privileged. Its affidavit in support of the motion is devoid of any facts indicating that the report was created exclusively in preparation for litigation (see Hawley v Travelers Ind. Co., 90 A.D.2d 684; Yannick v Tube City Iron Metal Co., 77 A.D.2d 623). We may not consider matters in a party's brief which are not contained in the record ( Interstate Window Cleaning Co. v Morse/Diesel Inc., 89 A.D.2d 820). The order appealed from should be modified, therefore, by deleting therefrom the statement that the report of defendant's investigator is privileged and need not be furnished.


Summaries of

Fonda v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Fonda v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD L. FONDA, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 27, 1984

Citations

99 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Lang v. Lang

Plaintiff states in her appellate brief that after the date of the order granting defendant's motion for…

Ferraro v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Thus, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The cross motion for a protective order was…