From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell v. Stellato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 19, 1997
240 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 19, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.).


Concerning defendant's document demand, plaintiff's retaining lien cannot justify a refusal to disclose documents clearly needed by defendant to prosecute her counterclaim for malpractice ( see, Rosenberg Estis v. Stewart, 138 Misc.2d 72). Concerning plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars, we agree with the motion court that it is so replete with palpably improper requests for evidentiary materials as to warrant its vacatur even though defendant's motion for relief therefrom was not timely ( see, Helfant v. Rappaport, 14 A.D.2d 764, 765; Posh Pillows v Hawes, 138 A.D.2d 472, 474).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell v. Stellato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 19, 1997
240 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell v. Stellato

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN, WEINRIB, RUDELL VASSALLO, P.C., Appellant, v. ANGELE STELLATO…

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

Date published: Jun 19, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Citing Cases

Securities Exchange Commission v. Ryan

The Pomerantz exception has been considered in numerous cases within this Circuit where the client was…

Saratoga Harness Racing v. Roemer

Therefore, we see nothing palpably improper in plaintiff's demand for those files. In any event, defendant's…