You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Roberts v. Modica

Citations: 92 A.D.2d 563; 459 N.Y.S.2d 315; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16796

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 13, 1983; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a medical malpractice case, St. John's Episcopal Hospital appeals a portion of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County's order from October 7, 1981, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the hospital's amended interrogatories dated May 26, 1981. The appellate court affirms this ruling, imposing costs of $50. The court finds that the Special Term acted within its discretion to vacate the interrogatories to prevent abuse of the discovery process, as permitted under CPLR 3103. The amended interrogatories were deemed excessively burdensome, oppressive, and improper, essentially being a restructured version of previously vacated interrogatories from February 11, 1981. The court emphasizes that it is the responsibility of counsel to serve proper demands, not the courts to rectify poorly constructed requests. Judges Damiani, Mangano, Thompson, and Boyers concur with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Burden of Discovery Requests

Application: The court determined that the amended interrogatories were excessively burdensome, oppressive, and improper.

Reasoning: The amended interrogatories were deemed excessively burdensome, oppressive, and improper, essentially being a restructured version of previously vacated interrogatories from February 11, 1981.

Discretion of the Court under CPLR 3103

Application: The court exercised its discretion to vacate the hospital's amended interrogatories to prevent potential abuse of the discovery process.

Reasoning: The court finds that the Special Term acted within its discretion to vacate the interrogatories to prevent abuse of the discovery process, as permitted under CPLR 3103.

Responsibility of Counsel in Discovery

Application: Counsel is responsible for serving properly constructed discovery demands rather than relying on the court to amend or rectify defective requests.

Reasoning: The court emphasizes that it is the responsibility of counsel to serve proper demands, not the courts to rectify poorly constructed requests.