Allen v Lasership, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Allen v Lasership, Inc. 2004 NY Slip Op 30402(U) October 29, 2004 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113243/04 Judge: Ronald A. Zweibel Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] .i • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 50Q ---------------·----------------------x HAROLD ALLEN, Index Numbe:r: 113243/04 Petitioner, :Decision & Order -againstLASERSHIP I INC.' Respondent. : --------------------------------------x ZWEIBEL, J. : Petitioner Harold Allen moves, pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), to compel discovery and inspection of certain invoices, leases, contracts, records, agreements and incident reports made and kept by respondent employees Lasership, Inc., its in the ordinary course of concerning an agents, servants and/or their business having and. incident which occurred on November 4, 2003 at respondent's place of business at 34 West 32"" Street, New York, New York. Petitioner alleges that while in the course of his employment for respondent, he was injured during the unloading of material being delivered by a third party, whose employees caused parts or portions of the material being unloaded to fall upon, and cause injury to, petitioner. According to petitioner, the accident was immediately reported to the petitioner's employer. Petitioner received Worker's Compensation benefits as a result of a work related injury. Petitioner claims to have no knowledge of the identity of those individuals responsible for the delivery and unloading of the materials which fell upon him causing injury. The identity of 00\ [* 2] > • those making the subject delivery is in the sole possession of Petitioner claims respondent. he has no other means of that acquiring the necessary information to pursue his rights against the responsible third party(s). According to petitioner, there is no prejudice to respondent. The of production material the requested is not onerous or burdensome to respondent and is material and necessary to the investigation and possible against any Respondent third parties neither has prosecution of responsible appeared nor petitioner's this for opposed claims occurrence. petitioner's application. CPLR section commenced, 3102 (c) disclosure obtained, but propriety of only by to provides that "(b) efore an action is aid court in bringing order." pre-litigation discovery The lies an action ... may assessment within of the be the sound discretion of the Court (see Thomas v. New York Citv Transit Police Dept., 91 A.D.2d 898, 899 [1st Dept. 1gs3]; Hoffman v. Batridge, 155 Misc.2d 862, 865 [Nassau Co. 1992]). In a proper case, pre- action discovery is permit.ted to assist a potential litigant to frame a complaint or identify a prospective defendant (see Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. v. Bonner, 84 A.D.2d 678, 679 [4th Dept. 1981]; Hoffman v. Batridge, 155 Misc.2d, at 865-66). Entitlement to disclosure to aid in framing of a complaint must be predicated upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has a 2 [* 3] ~- meritorious cause of action (see Gleich v. Kissinger, 130, 131 [1st Dept. 1985]; Hoffman v. 111 A.D.2d Batridge, 155 Misc.2d, at 8 66) . In this case, petitioner was injured by an unknown third party during the course of his employment by respondent. He believes that he has a claim for personal injury against that unknown third party. Respondent is in possession of information identifying that responsible third party(s). Without this information, petitioner claims that he will be unable to enforce his legal rights against the responsible third party (s) as petitioner will be unable to ascertain the individual's or individuals' identit.y(s). Hence, petitioner's present application. Given the lack of opposition by respondents, this Court finds that petitioner has made an adequate showing that he is to pre-action disclosure assist to him in entitled identifying a prospective defendant and that petitioner has a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, upon reading and filing the of annexed affirmation of James E. Gear, sworn to on August 23, 2004, it is hereby ORDERED discovery and invoices, that the petitioner's application inspection discovery and leases, contracts, records, for pre-action inspection of agreements and certain incident reports made and kept by respondent Lasership, Inc., its agents,· 3 [* 4] /, .servants and/or employees in the ordinary course of their business having and concerning an incident which occurred on November 4, 2003 at respondent.' s place of business at 34 West 32•id Street, New York, New York. ie granted, as the respondent has not opposed the instant application by appearing or answering the instant petition, and it is further ORDERED that petitioner ehall serve upon respondent a copy of this Decision & Order with a copy of the notice of entry and it is further ORDERED that the respondent, by its duly authorized representative, shall turn over to petitioner or make arrangements for petitioner to inspect the appropriate documents within twenty (20) days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry. This constitutes the decision order and judgment of this Court. ENTER: Dated: October 29, 2004 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
