CASTELLO SMITH PLAINTIFFS, v. PATRICIA WATSON def-ap

4001N. CASTELLO SMITH PLAINTIFFS, v. PATRICIA WATSON def-ap — THE KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Nonparty res, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Nonparty res — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York (C. Briggs Johnson of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about June 1, 2016, which denied defendants' motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court to examine, in camera, the requested discovery to ascertain whether it falls under the "public interest" privilege.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4001N. CASTELLO SMITH PLAINTIFFS, v. PATRICIA WATSON def-ap — THE KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Nonparty res, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Nonparty res — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York (C. Briggs Johnson of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about June 1, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court to examine, in camera, the requested discovery to ascertain whether it falls under the “public interest” privilege.

Defendants sought production of nonparty respondent New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) investigation file, and related documents concerning its investigation into the homicide of plaintiffs’ decedent, a security guard employed by defendants. Initially, NYPD was properly provided notice of defendants’ motion to compel, as demonstrated by the affirmation of service contained in the record, and because the motion to compel stated the “circumstances or reasons” that their discovery requests were “material and necessary” to defend against plaintiffs’ action (see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 34, 36-38 [2014]).

CASTELLO SMITH PLAINTIFFS, v. PATRICIA WATSON def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal