Corporations
Henry J. Pawlak, Individually and as Executor of Doreen M. Pawlak, Deceased, Respondent, v. General Motors Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants
112 A.D.2d 725·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1985·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Henry J. Pawlak, Individually and as Executor of Doreen M. Pawlak, Deceased, Respondent, v General Motors Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[MAJORITY]
Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order granting plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3120 for discovery and inspection of various documents and records. We reverse. The demands here lack "any semblance of reasonable specificity” (City of New York v Friedberg & Assoc., 62 AD2d 407, 410; see, Moussa v State of New York, 91 AD2d 863; Ganin v Janow, 86 AD2d 857, 858; Rios v Donovan, 21 AD2d 409, 413). "Lacking knowledge of the existence of specific documents * * * proper procedure requires * * * use of the deposition and related procedures * * * to ascertain the existence of such documents in order that they may be designated with specificity in a CPLR 3120 notice” (Haroian v Nusbaum, 84 AD2d 532, 533). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Flaherty, J. — discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.