From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mobil Oil Corporation v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

May 14, 1976

Appeal from the Court of Claims.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Moule, Cardamone, Mahoney and Goldman, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: On a motion to determine whether the material sought was prepared for litigation and is thus immune from discovery pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [d]), the burden is on the party resisting disclosure to show immunity (Koump v Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294; Dikun v New York Cent. R.R., 58 Misc.2d 439; Weisgold v Kiamesha Concord, 51 Misc.2d 456). Claimant adequately alleged a need for the desired examination before trial for the purpose of ascertaining the existence and use of unfiled appraisals prepared by the State (Court of Claims Act, § 17, subd 2). The allegations of the State's affiants directed solely to one possible form of utilization relative to Federal funding are conclusory at most and insufficient to defeat claimant's motion (Matter of Town of Hempstead [Near Point Lookout Malibu], 72 Misc.2d 558, 559). We do not pass upon the ultimate discoverability or trial admissibility of any such unfiled appraisal but merely hold, in accord with the procedure here undertaken by claimant's motion, as approved in Swartout v State of New York ( 44 A.D.2d 766), that a sufficient unrebutted showing has been made by claimant for the examination sought for the purpose of factual development concerning use by the State of unfiled appraisals (Kidansky v Schweickart, 35 A.D.2d 658; City of Binghamton v Arlington Hotel, 30 A.D.2d 585, 587; Haire v Long Is. R.R. Co., 29 A.D.2d 553). The order of the Court of Claims should be reversed and claimant's motion for an examination before trial of appropriate State personnel granted. After such examination, if it be developed that unfiled appraisals were prepared and used by the State for purposes other than use in the litigation of this claim, the propriety of discovery and disclosure may then be determined by the trial court, upon application either of the claimant for such direction or the State for a protective order.


Summaries of

Mobil Oil Corporation v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Mobil Oil Corporation v. State

Case Details

Full title:MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim…

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

Date published: May 14, 1976

Citations

52 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Stengel v. Long Island Lighting Company

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the…

Matter of Weaver v. Waterville Knitting Mills

Appellant urges, however, that the reports prepared following the accident are material prepared for…