Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
John S. Troup et al., Plaintiffs, v. Midland-Ross Corporation, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. Morgan Engineering Company et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs; Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant
94 A.D.2d 949·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1983·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
John S. Troup et al., Plaintiffs, v Midland-Ross Corporation, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. Morgan Engineering Company et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs; Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
[MAJORITY]
— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The statements of third-party defendant’s employees enjoyed a qualified privilege as material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101, subd [d]; Shiu Yu Liang v Bateman, 68 AD2d 934). Nevertheless, once they were released to third-party defendant Bethlehem pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [e]), the liberal disclosure policy underlying CPLR 3101 required full disclosure in this multiparty action (see Siegel, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:13, 1982-1983 Pocket Part, pp 24-25). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Bayger, J. — discovery.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.
39