Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

KERN v. Lieutenant John P. McMenemy, Respondent.  (Appeal No. 1.) (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Wendy L. KERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Fire Department of City of Rochester, Police Department of City of Rochester, Rochester Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 1071, IAFF, Daniel Cavuoto, Individually and as President of Local 1071, IAFF, Charles D. Ippolito, Individually and as Former Chief of Fire Department of City of Rochester, Lloyd Eldridge, Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendant. Lieutenant John P. McMenemy, Respondent.  (Appeal No. 1.)

Decided: December 30, 1999

PRESENT:  GREEN, J.P., LAWTON, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Emmelyn Logan-Baldwin, Rochester, for plaintiff-appellant. Paul D. MacAuley, for defendants-respondents City of Rochester, Fire Department of City of Rochester, Police Department of City of Rochester and Charles D. Ippolito, individually and as former Chief of Fire Department of City of Rochester. Lucina O. Lapoff, Rochester, for defendant-respondent Rochester Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 1071, IAFF. John R. Parrinello, Rochester, for defendant-respondent Daniel Cavuoto, individually and as President of Local 1071, IAFF. Scott M. Green, Rochester, for defendant-respondent LLoyd Eldridge. Bradley c. Rosen, Rochester, for respondent.

 Supreme Court properly denied in part plaintiff's motion for a protective order.   The court, “because of its obvious familiarity with the matter, has broad discretion to supervise the discovery process and was in the best position to determine what is ‘material and necessary’ ” (Jackson v. Dow Chem. Co., 214 A.D.2d 827, 828, 624 N.Y.S.2d 675).   In view of the allegations in the complaint, the court reasonably determined that the conduct and activities of plaintiff both outside and within the workplace during her employment were relevant to the defamation cause of action and the alleged injury to plaintiff's profession, reputation and standing in the community.   The disclosure permitted by the court was properly limited to evidence “material and necessary in the * * * defense of” that cause of action (CPLR 3101[a] ).   The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying those parts of plaintiff's cross motions seeking disqualification of the law firm representing nonparty witness Lieutenant John P. McMenemy (see, Rich v. Hackel, 205 A.D.2d 316, 317, 613 N.Y.S.2d 5) and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 (see, Scaccia v. MacCurdy, 239 A.D.2d 942, 661 N.Y.S.2d 812).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

KERN v. Lieutenant John P. McMenemy, Respondent.  (Appeal No. 1.) (1999)

Decided: December 30, 1999

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard