Case ID: ad2d_14/html/0790-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur Brecht, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.
   The matters requested are not reports and records required by statute to be made and filed and, therefore, do not come within section 66-a of the Public Officers Law (Matter of Erenberg v. Brill, 10 A D 2d 769). Discovery and inspection of the first three items mentioned may not be had under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act (Briant v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7 A D 2d 756; Faendrick v. Allied Aviation Serv. Int. Corp., 284 App. Div. 898; Ehrlich v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 251 App. Div. 721; Falco v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 161 App. Div. 735). Nor may there be discovery and inspection of the statement of the witness (Urbina v. McLain, 4 A D 2d 589). It should also be noted that application under section 66-a of the Public Officers Law should be made under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, and not by motion in a negligence action (cf. Matter of New York Post Corp. v. Moses, 10 N Y 2d 199). Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.