TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re City of New York

In the Matter of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for a Park and Park Addition, Bounded by Bleecker Street and Other Streets in the Borough of Manhattan

In re City of N.Y., 43 Misc. 2d 173 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
June 10, 1964
Judges
Mabkowitz
Citations
43 Misc. 2d 173250 N.Y.S.2d 6641964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1670

Opinion of the Court — Mabkowitz

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Jacob Mabkowitz, J.

The claimant, by motion, seeks the signing and issuing by the court of subpoenas duces tecum, directing the production of the appraisals heretofore made, of the real estate, which is the subject of this condemnation proceeding.

The claimant, an owner of real estate in the within condemnation proceeding, contends that in or about September, 196-1, an appraisal was prepared by the Department of Beal Estate of the City of New York and submitted to the Board of Estimate in conjunction with the subject property. That since that date additional appraisals of the subject property were made by the Department of Beal Estate of the City of New York, the Corporation Counsel’s office of the City of New York, and the Comptroller’s office of the City of New York.

The City of New York, while not denying the preparation of the 1961 valuation, however, contends that appraisals made by city experts other than the one who will testify in this proceeding, may not be admitted in evidence or -subject to subpoena, presumably on the theory that they are part of the ‘ ‘ work product ”.

Section 3101 CPLB exempts from disclosure the work product of an attorney (subd. [c]), and material prepared for litigation such as an expert opinion or a writing created by a party or his agent in preparation for litigation (subd. [d]). The expanding concept of maximum disclosure would require that the former category be confined only to material prepared by an attorney, an attorney, containing his notes, analysis, and trial strategy. Certainly this is inapplicable here. Insofar as subdivision (d) is concerned, there is no indication that the appraisals sought were prepared exclusively for litigation, and even if they were prepared with litigation in mind, this was not the dominant purpose of their preparation. Their main purpose was to aid the Board of Estimate in performing its functions or the city in acquiring the property. Nor do they come within the exemptions of section 1114 of the City Charter, since this section is *175 inapplicable to pending proceedings. Nor is a question of government privilege here involved, since there is no indication that withholding of this information is necessary for reasons of security or public policy.

The foregoing is applicable to all appraisals, and not limited only to those actually submitted.

There is no question that the material sought may be admissible at the trial if a proper foundation is laid as an admission against interest (Matter of City of N. Y. [Marshall], 16 A D 2d 570, 577).

The motion is, accordingly, granted, and the subpoenas duces tecum signed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 11968: 31969: 11972: 11994: 119662026peak 1968 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Two Tracts Of Land In The Town Of Brookhaven412 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1969)
  2. In re the City of New York50 Misc. 2d 478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1966)
  3. City of Buffalo v. Ives55 Misc. 2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968)
  4. Sullivan v. State57 Misc. 2d 308 (1968)
  5. Lessen v. Stevens30 A.D.2d 740 (1968)
  6. In re the Town of Hempstead72 Misc. 2d 558 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Frawley v. Albrecht163 Misc. 2d 630 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994)
  2. In re the Town of Hempstead72 Misc. 2d 558 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1972)
  3. United States v. Two Tracts Of Land In The Town Of Brookhaven412 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1969)
  4. Lessen v. Stevens30 A.D.2d 740 (1968)
  5. Sullivan v. State57 Misc. 2d 308 (1968)
  6. City of Buffalo v. Ives55 Misc. 2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list