Court Opinion

ID: 5824821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 21:20:03.326315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:15.161192
License: Public Domain

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 30, 1977, which denied his motion for a protective order vacating a notice for the discovery and inspection of a copy of any statement given by the defendant to his insurance representative, broker or agent with reference to the accident in question. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The matter sought constitutes material prepared for the purposes of litigation and as such cannot be obtained (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]; Finegold v Lewis, 22 AD2d 447; Kandel v Tocher, 22 AD2d 513; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.50b). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.