¶1Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We recognize that there is a policy of liberal and full disclosure to be applied to discovery requests pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Jonmaire v Town of W. Seneca, 120 AD2d 928; Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 237; Klatz v Armor Elevator Co., 93 AD2d 633). However, in the circumstances of this case, the court should make an in camera inspection of the *925records and determine what portion of the records, if any, is material and necessary to the prosecution of the issues. (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, McMahon, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Law-ton, JJ.
144 A.D.2d 924
Radon v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1988
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1988-11-15
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1989
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1988-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →