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.
Juan ROJAS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 18, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the production of the written statement of the nonparty eyewitness Robert Vuono and denied that branch of their cross motion which was for a protective order.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to compel the production of the nonparty witness is denied, and that branch of the cross motion which was for a protective order is granted.
Under CPLR 3101(d)(2), “materials otherwise discoverable * * * and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party, or by or for that other party's representative * * * may be obtained only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means”. Here, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant New York City Transit Authority to produce the written statement of a nonparty eyewitness, which, upon the direction of its defense counsel, was taken by its claims examiner. The written statement of an eyewitness to an accident is “truly material prepared for litigation” (Zellman v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 40 A.D.2d 248, 251, 339 N.Y.S.2d 255), and is “qualifiedly exempt from disclosure” (Shiu Yu Liang v. Bateman, 68 A.D.2d 934, 414 N.Y.S.2d 590; see, Williams v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 A.D.2d 530, 471 N.Y.S.2d 310; Reese v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 24 A.D.2d 581, 262 N.Y.S.2d 194). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the “substantial equivalent” of this statement could not “be obtained by other means without undue hardship” (Davila v. Environmental Prods. & Servs., 270 A.D.2d 224, 703 N.Y.S.2d 538), it need not be disclosed.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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.
Decided: October 23, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)