Grieco v. Cunningham, 128 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Grieco v. Cunningham, 128 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Taglioni v. Garcia (nyappdiv, 2021-10-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taglioni v. Garcia
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The husband's counsel acknowledged the parties' differences when counsel informed the court that they had "now [*3]learned that the [wife] has no intention of selling the townhouse and that she has changed her position." Thus, even assuming arguendo that the dissent is correct that the wife initially agreed to the sale of the townhouse, she revoked her consent because the parties were unable to agree on the material terms of the sale ( see Harrington , 303 AD2d at 368-369 .) Additionally, the court erred in imposing conditions on the sale of the property that were not discussed or agreed to on…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crawford v. Lahiri
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 159 AD2d 1013 ; see also, McDonough v Pinsley, 239 AD2d 109 ), and whether or not the material had been supplied to him by his attorney (see, e.g., Grieco v Cunningham, 128 AD2d 502 ; Herrmann v General Tire & Rubber Co., 79 AD2d 955 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincent A. Grieco
v.
James Cunningham
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 2, 1987.
128 A.D.2d 502
1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44195
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered August 16, 1985, which was in favor of the defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in directing production of two written statements, one made by the plaintiff Vincent Grieco before trial and one made by a plaintiffs’ witness, as these writings were privileged as attorney’s work product and pursuant to the attorney-client relationship (see, CPLR 3101 [b], [c]). We disagree.

Any privilege under CPLR 3101 was waived when Vincent Grieco used his written statement prior to his deposition to refresh his recollection as to the events of the incident, and when the plaintiffs’ witness reread her statement prior to the trial for the same purpose. The defendant was thus entitled to have the statements made available to him and to use them in cross-examination (see, Merrill Lynch Realty Commercial Seros, v Rudin Mgt. Co., 94 AD2d 617; Herrmann v General Tire & Rubber Co., 79 AD2d 955; Doxtator v Swarthout, 38 AD2d 782; see also, Richardson, Evidence § 467 [Prince 10th ed]; 3 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 762, 763 [Chadbourn rev]).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ other claim and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.