From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 1, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).


Whether or not adequate circumstances have been shown to support discovery against a nonparty is generally a determination resting within the sound discretion of the court to which the application is made (Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 N.Y.2d 1031, 1032). In this case, the movant has offered no reason why an assessment of plaintiff's physical condition cannot be made in the usual way from an evaluation of the medical findings (see, D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 182 A.D.2d 462), or that the information sought cannot be obtained from other sources (Dioguardi v St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 A.D.2d 333, 334). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the motion court's denial of the application.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1992
188 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH RADOLINSKI et al., Respondents, v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO., Appellant…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Savarese v. Yonkers Motors Corp.

It was an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to deny plaintiff's request for a protective order pursuant…

Mark Anderson v. Kamalian

"It is proper to direct disclosure against a nonparty witness only in the presence of adequate special…