N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary information; when the relevance of requested records is unclear, a court may inspect them in camera and order disclosure of relevant information.

Singh v. BSC, LLC · filed 2026-06-03(a)

CPLR 3101(a) requires "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... Thus, under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for an in camera inspection of the requested records to determine whether any information is contained within the records that is relevant to the issues in controversy in this action and, if so, for the entry of an order directing that such information, if any, shall be produced to the defendants ( see Bronstein v Omega Constr. Group, Inc. , 221 AD3d 577, 578-579; Reid v Soults , 114 AD3d 921, 923).

Section 3101(a) permits a deposition when the witness’s testimony is material and necessary to resolving the action.

Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art L.L.C. v. Lee · filed 2025-12-23(a)

The court providently exercised its discretion in ordering Lee to appear for a deposition under the usual conditions, as her testimony is material and necessary to the resolution of the action (CPLR 3101[a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of documents material and necessary to a defense, including documents bearing on each plaintiff’s standing.

Brownyard v. County of Suffolk · filed 2025-12-24(a)

Inasmuch as individual standing is a threshold requirement to maintain an action, each plaintiff must show that he or she personally suffered monetary damages as a result of the challenged practices ( see Murray v Empire Ins. Co. , 175 AD2d 693, 695). Thus, the defendants demonstrated that the requested documents were material and necessary to the defense of this action ( see Hamed v Alas Realty Corp. , 209 AD3d 628, 629).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery about a later accident in a different building when the documents may reveal evidence of prior notice of the alleged problem.

Brown v. City of New York · filed 2026-01-15(a)

Plaintiff demonstrated that the requested discovery is "material and necessary" because, even though the fatal accident occurred after the subject accident and in a different building, the sought-after documents may produce evidence of NYCHA's prior notice of mechanical issues concerning the building elevators (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Baxter v Orans , 63 AD2d 875, 875 [1st Dept 1978]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary matter, including a contract central to the claims in an action.

Ballon Stoll P.C. v. 162 Utica Ave, Inc. · filed 2026-02-20(a)

Ballon Stoll did respond to the Preliminary Conference and Compliance Conference Orders, but in neither case did it provide a copy of the signed contract of sale for the Premises, the very document that forms the basis of this interpleader action. In this way, Ballon Stoll’s responses do not constitute a good-faith effort to provide meaningful discovery on the material issues raised by its complaint.

CPLR 3101(a) allows disclosure of matter material and necessary to a claim or defense; demands for irrelevant information fall outside that scope.

J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Herschmann · filed 2026-02-25(a)

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a), parties are entitled to "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... The Herschmanns' discovery demands were palpably improper in that they were overbroad, irrelevant, and sought information that was not material or necessary to their defense against Garnerville's cross-claims in this action ( see Lombardi v Lombardi , 190 AD3d at 966; Pascual v Rustic Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc. , 173 AD3d 757, 758).

Section 3101 requires disclosure of documents material and necessary to prosecuting a claim, including records showing how disputed transaction proceeds were received, allocated, and distributed.

GMH Star W. LLC v. TGCA Star W. LLC · filed 2026-03-02

Given the allegations in the complaint and the circumstances of this case, documents directly bearing on the receipt, allocation, and distribution of the proceeds of the property flip at issue are material and necessary to the prosecution of plaintiffs' claims and therefore properly subject to disclosure.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of internal police guidelines that bear on the facts in dispute, even though violations of those guidelines do not themselves create civil liability.

Wright v. City of New York · filed 2026-03-09(a)

New York maintains a liberal discovery policy requiring "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" CPLR 3101(a). ... However, such internal guidelines may nevertheless be discoverable or otherwise relevant to factual issues in the case, as internal rules may constitute some evidence bearing on the circumstances of the conduct at issue even though they do not establish the legal standard of care ( see Danbois v New York Cent. R.R. Co. , 12 NY2d 234 [1963]).

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of matter material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action.

Lannon v. Everest Natl. Ins. Co. · filed 2026-04-15(a)

CPLR 3101(a) directs that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action."

Section 3101 limits the scope of disclosure, subject to express or implied exceptions in other CPLR provisions.

Nathanson & Co. v. Macfadden-Bartell Corp. · filed 1965-03-23

It is to be noted that other provisions of the CPLR provide explicit or implicit exceptons to the limitation on scope of discovery set by CPLR 3101 (see, e.g., CPLR 3107; 3211, subd. [d] ; 3102, subd. [c]).

Section 3101 permits an examination when the proposed tests are needful to the defense and may yield material evidence, even if their results may not be admitted at trial.

Carpinelli v. Manhattan Bottling Corp. · filed 1964-06-08

Under the circumstances, the tests may well be “ material and necessary in the * * defense of [the] action ” (CPLR 3101). ... The record amply supports defendant’s contention that the tests are presently needful. There is no requirement -that the results of the tests be decisive or invulnerable.

Section 3101 requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecute objections to an executor’s accounting.

In re the Accounting of Genesee Valley Union Trust Co. · filed 1964-06-11

The other evidence specified in the notice of examination as hereby amended is material and necessary in the prosecution of the objections and full disclosure thereof is required 'by CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of records unrelated to the issues raised by the pleadings.

M B Steel Corp. v. United Steel Warehouse Corp. · filed 1965-02-15(a)

In our opinion, the records demanded by defendant, referred to in subdivisions (b) and (e) of plaintiff’s notice of motion, did not relate to any of the issues raised by the pleadings. Accordingly, they were not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action (CPLR 3101, subd. [a]; cf. Johansen v. Gray, 279 App. Div. 108, 109).

Section 3101 sets the scope of disclosure when an authorized disclosure device is used; it does not itself authorize a general demand for disclosure.

Panat Jewelry Co. v. Ronray Realty Co. · filed 1964-03-18

The codefendant has served such a demand on the assumed basis of 3101 Civil Practice Law and Rules, which deals with the general principles of scope of disclosure to be applied when a disclosure device is used.

Section 3101 permits both oral examination and written interrogatories, but a party should use one first and turn to the other if the first does not adequately disclose material and necessary evidence.

Katz v. Posner · filed 1965-04-12

With respect to the interrogatories, it is our opinion that although under the statute (CPLR 3101) a party may be entitled to an examination both orally and by written interrogatories, he should first invoke one or the other of these devices. If the device first chosen does not adequately disclose all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action (OPLR 3101), then the other available remedy may be utilized.

Section 3101 broadly requires disclosure of material and necessary evidence while limiting discovery that would replace a party’s own investigation.

Parker v. New York Telephone Co. · filed 1965-06-16(c)

It appears that CPLR 3101 covering scope of disclosure is a culmination of prior case rule as well as statutory rules with intent to broaden its application. ... However, even applying this broad interpretation to the instant case, the court cannot agree with the plaintiff’s contended right to copies of statements of other witnesses without some justification. ... The disclosure proceeding is not to be employed as a substitute for a party’s diligence in his own investigation and while the policy of discovery is broadened, discovery should not be permitted to substitute for independent investigation of facts which are readily available to both parties. Therefore the court determines that the defendant is granted a protective order in respect to the statements of the named witnesses.

Section 3101 permits discovery of a party's own statements and protects material prepared for litigation and an attorney’s work product.

State v. Master Plumbers Ass'n · filed 1965-08-04

The notice for discovery and inspection, pursuant to CPLR 3120 is permitted as to item No. 1. ... Item No. 4 will be stricken as its language is too broad and may well encompass material prepared for litigation and/or an attorney’s work product. (CPLR 3101, subd [a], par. [4]; 3101, subds. [c], [d]; CPLR 3103, subd. [a].)

Section 3101 requires full disclosure of all evidence that is material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action, subject to specified exceptions.

West v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1965-12-08

CPLR 3101 provides that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence, material and necessary in the prosecution of an action subject to certain exceptions not here pertinent. The word ‘ ‘ evidence ’ ’ as used in the statute has not been held equivalent to that evidence which might be admissible upon the trial of the action. Disclosure extends to all relevant information calculated to lead to relevant evidence. The statute is construed to mean “ evidence required in preparation for trial.” (Beyer v. Keller, 11 A D 2d 426; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3101.04 et seq.) Documents sought to be discovered need no longer be primary evidence. (Padilla v. Damascus, 16 A D 2d 71.) If the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence in chief or in rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action. If there is some doubt of admissibility upon the trial of the action, Special Term should permit discovery leaving the ultimate decision to the trial court. (Field v. Goodrich Co., 124 N. Y. S. 2d 256.)

Section 3101 embodies a policy of full disclosure.

In re the Estate of Welsh · filed 1965-12-06

However well founded the reservations entertained by the learned Surrogate may be, we believe they must yield to the policy of full disclosure enunciated in the CPLB, as well as in recent cases (see CPLR 3101; Marie Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros., 274 App. Div. 11, 13-14; Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A D 2d 430, 434).

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action, with necessity left to the trial judge’s discretion.

Weber Construction Co. v. State · filed 1966-10-27(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) provides among other things that: “ There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof ”. The appellant does not contend that the information requested is not material or necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Accordingly, the matter of necessity to the claimant is for the Trial Judge’s discretion and it does not appear that such discretion has been abused.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to prosecute or defend an action.

Waugh v. Firemen's Fund Insurance · filed 1966-11-19(a)

... he cannot, through the utilization of the process of such designation, render himself immune from the obligation to make ‘ ‘ full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of [this] action” (CPLR 3101, subd. [a]).

Section 3101 requires disclosure to be limited to evidence that is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the proceeding.

Katz Buffalo Realty, Inc. v. Anderson · filed 1966-04-07

Such an examination should not be allowed to disclose evidence which is not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the proceeding (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101 permits disclosure of matter that is material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action.

Gold v. Jacobi · filed 1966-12-12

The policy limits in this type of suit are not matter “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense ” of this action (CPLR 3101; cf. Guilianelle v. Brownell, 7 A D 2d 691 [1958]; Merchants Ind. Corp. of N. Y. v. Wattack, 14 A D 2d 777 [1961]).

Section 3101 permits examination of an opposing party’s agents on material and necessary matters; counsel cannot turn their earlier observations and reports into work product by adopting them later.

Brunswick Corp. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1967-02-23(a)(1)

Plaintiff, therefore, had the right under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [1]) to examine them as to all material and necessary matters except privileged matter (subd. [b]), attorneys’ work product (subd. [c]), and material prepared for litigation (subd. [d]). The exceptions do not prevent examination respecting observations made by them when they examined the premises before consulting defendants’ attorneys or any reports thereof. The attorneys cannot, by retroactive adoption of such observations and reports, convert them into their work product.

Section 3101 requires disclosure of information material and necessary to an action, including relevant information that may lead to evidence.

De Castro v. City of New York · filed 1967-10-03

CPLR 3101 provides that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution and defense of an action subject to certain exceptions not here pertinent. Disclosure extends to all relevant information calculated to lead to relevant evidence. ... Therefore, since defendants are seeking information with regard to plaintiff’s mental condition, they are entitled to the relief sought under the circumstances herein.

Section 3101 permits a plaintiff to obtain a defendant’s handwriting exemplars before trial when they are material and necessary to the plaintiff’s claim.

Rosenblatt v. Danzis · filed 1967-12-18

Upon research and analysis of the questions involved herein, there is no question that in accordance with the purposes, intent and provisions of CPLR 3101, the plaintiff is entitled to a full disclosure of all evidence, material and necessary in the prosecution of his cause of action. In the instant case, proof of defendant’s handwriting is not only material and necessary, but it is an essential, basic and vital element of proof of the plaintiff’s cause of action as pleaded. ... Accordingly, the defendant’s objection to giving his handwriting exemplars is overruled.

Section 3101 limits pretrial testimony and document production to matters relevant to the issues in dispute.

La Potin v. Julius Lang Co. · filed 1968-05-23

The defendant has admitted all the material allegations of the complaint except the failure or refusal to deliver the goods and the resulting damage. Accordingly, the examination should be limited to the procuring of testimony bearing on the issues so raised. Likewise, the books, papers, etc., to be produced at the examination, should be limited to those items germane to the issues includable in the examination.

Section 3101(a) permits examination of an assessor and an appraisal company about the property assessment process when the scope of discovery is not excessively broad.

Lessen v. Stevens · filed 1968-06-27(a)

We find no merit in appellants’ contentions that there are no grounds for examining the Richards Co. or the named assessor. ... We do not, however, here have to reach the more difficult question of whether discovery would be permissible as to the other issues raised, for in our opinion the scope of the order, considering the latitude permitted in modern pretrial examination, is not excessively broad.

Section 3101 does not permit a blanket order for a nonparty’s entire investigation file without identifying the documents to be inspected and accounting for privileged matter, attorney’s work product, and material prepared for litigation.

Pacer v. Clarence A. Hackett, Inc. · filed 1968-09-27

This blanket direction, without specifically designating the documents to be inspected, is clearly too broad and all-embracing. It made no exception for privileged matter, attorney’s work product or material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]; subds. [b] [e] [d]).

Section 3101’s requirement of full disclosure of material and necessary evidence limits the court’s discretion over additional inspections.

Tovern v. Gardner & North Roofing & Siding Corp. · filed 1968-10-11

The exercise of this discretion is limited on the one hand by “ full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary” (CPLR 3101) and on the other hand by “ unreasonable ánnoyanee, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts ” (CPLR 3103). We conclude then that, while CPLR 3120 assures one inspection after the commencement of an action, there may or may not be subsequent inspections, dependent upon the proper exercise of the court’s discretion within the framework of the given circumstances of each case.

Section 3101 limits disclosure of material prepared for litigation and attorneys’ work product.

Krause v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance · filed 1968-12-05

The plaintiff’s demands far exceed the scope of proper disclosure in that as phrased they may reasonably be construed to include material prepared for litigation as well as the work product of attorneys (CPLR 3101) and are unduly burdensome.

Section 3101(a) permits examination on matters material and necessary to the defense, even when they extend beyond the issues raised by the pleadings.

Besen v. C. P. L. Yacht Sales, Inc. · filed 1969-01-13(a)

Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking from the last ordering paragraph thereof the words “be strictly limited to the issues raised by the pleadings” and by substituting in place thereof the words “be limited to matters which are material and necessary in the defense of the action.”

Section 3101 requires disclosure to be material and necessary, whether sought through discovery and inspection or oral depositions.

Booth, Lipton & Lipton v. Cassel · filed 1966-10-10

There does not appear to be authority for holding that different standards, with reference to the scope of the disclosure, apply under CPLR 3120 (discovery and inspection) than under CPLR 3107 et seq. (concerning oral depositions). Both are subject to the test of materiality and necessity prescribed by CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of appraisal reports prepared to obtain Urban Renewal funds when they are material and necessary to the litigation.

City of Binghamton v. Arlington Hotel, Inc. · filed 1968-05-20(a)

Upon the facts and circumstances here presented, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting the order for discovery. CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) provides that “ There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof”. In applying this section to the facts in this case, we think appellant’s further argument that discovery and inspection of these appraisal reports is unwarranted on the ground they are not “ material and necessary ”, is without merit.

Section 3101's material-and-necessary standard permits disclosure of an examining physician's report even when the physician will not testify.

Falcone v. Repetti · filed 1969-11-19(a)

disclosure can only be required when evidence is “ material and necessary ” in the prosecution or defense of an action. ... However, the Court of. Appeals has affirmed the position that aside from the evidentiary value of the report, the paramount policy of complete pretrial discovery must be adhered to — each party should know as much about the other’s claim as is fairly and appropriately possible. ... Accordingly, the defendants are directed to furnish plaintiff with a copy of the report of their examining physician.

Section 3101 defines the scope and limits of disclosure; its reference to a motion in subsection (a)(4) points to motions under later procedural sections.

Muss v. Utilities & Industries Corp. · filed 1969-11-25(a)(4)

We suggest that CPLR 3101 defines in general terms the scope of disclosure and the limitations thereon and that it was not intended as a procedural section. The methods provided for obtaining disclosure begin with CPLR 3102.

Section 3101(a)(1) requires disclosure of facts bearing on the controversy that will assist trial preparation.

Turner v. Town of Amherst · filed 1970-03-16(a)(1)

The words “material and necessary” are to be liberally construed to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues.

Section 3101(a)(1) permits examination of additional employees when relevant issues remain after other employees have been examined.

Caribbean Atlantic Airlines, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Limited · filed 1971-10-14(a)(1)

However, there are additional relevant issues which the defendant is entitled to pursue to obtain “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary”. (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [1].) Accordingly, Vidal and Martinez are directed to be produced for examination.

Section 3101 permits interrogatories concerning the pleaded issues when the information sought is material and necessary to the litigation.

Northwest Mink Ranches, Inc. v. Centennial Insurance · filed 1969-06-17

These items relate to the complaint and the issues raised by the pleadings. In view of the unique nature of the litigation the items presently allowed are “ material and necessary ” within the fair intendment of CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of evidence material and necessary to the claims in litigation.

Rohde v. State · filed 1969-11-06(a)

Disclosure is required of “ all evidence material and necessary” (CPLR 3101, subd. [a]). ... Hotiee is clearly a required element of proof for such a claim, and, accordingly, the disclosure involved was properly ordered.

Section 3101(a) allows examination of witnesses who may possess evidence material and necessary to a party’s defense.

Corona Hair Net Corp. v. Chemaco, Ltd. · filed 1970-02-05(a)

The defendants have sufficiently demonstrated that the witnesses sought to be examined may possess evidence which is “material and necessary in the * * * defense” of this action (CPLR 3101, subd. [a]).

Section 3101 limits disclosure to material and necessary information; a court may grant a protective order when the requested document falls outside that scope.

Bay Ridge Mortgage Co. v. Lincoln Metal Products Corp. · filed 1970-02-09

Under the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the document and information sought to be discovered are not material and necessary within the scope of CPLR 3101 (M B Steel Corp. v. United Steel Warehouse Corp., 23 A D 2d 579; cf. M B Steel Corp. v. United Steel Warehouse Corp., 23 N Y 2d 838).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it reasonable.

Gilbert Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co. · filed 1970-03-02(a)

The test should be one of usefulness and reason. CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) should be construed to permit discovery of testimony which is sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the efforts to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable.

Section 3101 permits production of tax returns material and necessary to a support arrears claim, but not returns from years with no bearing on that claim.

Lombardo v. Lombardo · filed 1971-11-29

Consequently, the tax returns of defendant for the years 1968 and 1969 only were proper items for production (CPLR 3101 et seq.). The other tax returns are not material or necessary to the prosecution of plaintiff’s claim.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecute or defend an action, but does not permit discovery of assets available to pay a potential judgment.

Gelber v. New York Central System · filed 1971-12-09

CPLR 3101 permits disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. The evidence sought herein by plaintiffs is not material in the prosecution of this ease and there is no authority for granting the order sought.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to a defense.

Maloney v. Buffalo Savings Bank · filed 1973-01-18(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the defense of an action.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of material and necessary evidence, including evidence about events before a proposed time limit when those events bear on a disputed agreement.

Lawrence A. Epter & Associates, Inc. v. Jefferson County Savings Bank · filed 1973-03-26(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) and judicial pronouncements on the subject, mandate full disclosure. Appellant should be permitted to depose plaintiff on events or occurrences prior to June 15, 1970.

CPLR 3101 permits discovery of evidence material and necessary to the case, including business records and receipts relevant to future earnings.

Rollner v. Cannon · filed 1973-10-01

Appellants are entitled to discovery of all “ evidence material and necessary ” to the case under CPLR 3101.

Section 3101 allows broad pretrial questioning about a defendant physician’s relevant expert opinions, even when the plaintiff may use another expert at trial.

Kane v. Randt · filed 1974-02-06

The remaining limitation here deals with, and is applicable to all, examinations before trial under CPLR 3101 et seq. Expert evidence must be within the usual bounds of relevancy and materiality to triable issues. ... Under the CPLR and its liberalized rules of allowing broad pretrial discovery into all matters pertinent and necessary to the prosecution of an action, including information required for cross-examination, there is a wider scope of questioning than might be allowed at trial.

Section 3101(a)’s broad disclosure standard applies to discovery proceedings under CPLR 3120.

Curea v. Romonel Knitting Mills, Inc. · filed 1974-07-01(a)

The wide scope of disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) (Allen v. Crowell-Coilier Pub. Co., 21 N Y 2d 403) applies to discovery proceedings under CPLR 3120 (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, *841N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3120.18).

CPLR 3101 permits disclosure of security precautions used or recommended, with in camera review to determine which parts of a security report may be disclosed while protecting confidential information.

Wood-Muller v. Provident Loan Society · filed 1975-01-28

It is noted that on March 5, 1973, the Supreme Court in granting plaintiffs’ motion for further examination of the defendant, properly held that the security precautions used or recommended were subject to disclosure (CPLR 3101; Allen v. Croweil-Gollier Pub. Go., 21 N Y 2d 403). Defendant’s contention that examination of the security report would put at jeopardy its present security system can be met with the simple statement and observation that review of the report preliminarily by the court in camera serves to protect defendant’s interest in the confidentiality of its present security system and the interest of plaintiffs in having disclosure of such information contained in that report which would be of benefit to the plaintiffs and as to which plaintiffs would be clearly entitled.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of material and necessary evidence; examination questions should generally be permitted unless they violate a constitutional right or privilege or are palpably irrelevant.

Freedco Products, Inc. v. New York Telephone Co. · filed 1975-02-18(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) states that “There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardess of the burden of proof”, with exceptions noted which are not here pertinent. ... We do again, however, call to the attention of the Bench and Bar that in an examination before trial unless a question is clearly violative of the witness’s constitutional rights, or of some privilege recognized in law, or is palpably irrelevant, questions should be freely permitted and answered, since all objections other than as to form are preserved for the trial and may be raised at that time.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of school records material and necessary to prove that a school knew of a student's assaultive tendencies.

Growick v. Board of Education · filed 1972-05-04

CPLR 3101 provides that “ There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution * * * of an action ”, and there can be little doubt that the information sought by appellants is such evidence.

Section 3101(a) calls for liberal disclosure of relevant facts that bear on the controversy and help prepare the case for trial.

Estabrook & Co. v. Masiello · filed 1973-10-18(a)

Our courts in interpreting what is material and necessary have stated in effect that those words mean “ relevant ”, and in the leading case of Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 N Y 2d 403, 406) the court stated that the phrase must be “ interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity.”

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material and necessary evidence, but does not require disclosure relevant only to a claim that has not been pleaded.

Randaccio v. Retail Credit Co. · filed 1973-12-13(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) requires disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution of an action. ... Since the disclosure sought by the plaintiff is not relevant to an action under the General Business Law but to an action for libel, plaintiff’s application should be denied, and defendant’s application for an order of preclusion and for a further bill of particulars is also without basis and was properly denied, all without prejudice to an application to amend the complaint.

Section 3101(a)’s “material and necessary” standard is construed liberally under a test of usefulness and reason.

Capitol Hill Twin Towers Corp. v. Apcoa Division, ITT Consumer Services Corp. · filed 1974-06-13(a)

Defendant sought and obtained a protective order from disclosing such information, claiming it was not “material and necessary” (of. CPLR 3101, subd. [a]). Despite the liberality of construction attending such language with the test being “ one of usefulness and reason” ... it is equally clear that the trial court has been given broad discretion to control the matters into which one may inquire (CPLR 3103, subd. [a]; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3103.01).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material and necessary patient records, subject to safeguards protecting the patient’s identity.

Bremiller v. Miller · filed 1974-10-08(a)

There is a further dominating question. As held in Wilson v. State of New York (36 A D 2d 559) which involved a claim for personal injuries resulting from an attack by a fellow prison inmate: “ Evidence of the attacker’s prior behavior and a diagnosis of his mental condition would be material and necessary to the prosecution of this claim (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]; Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N Y 2d 403, 406).” ... The petitioner’s application is granted.

Section 3101(a)’s “material and necessary” requirement is interpreted liberally when deciding whether to allow discovery.

Lalin v. Hill Lalin of Nassau Ltd. · filed 1974-11-12(a)

On their face the documents and materials sought appear to satisfy the “material and necessary” requirements, especially in view of the liberal interpretation to be given to CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) {Allen iv. Growell-Collier Pub. Go., 21 N Y 2d 403).

Section 3101(a) permits pretrial questions about a party’s convictions, former names, and addresses when the answers may be used to test credibility at trial.

Goberman v. McNamara · filed 1974-01-29(a)

Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to answer the questions asked. ... The comments of Professor McLaughlin in his column ... are more in keeping with the spirit of the CPLR 3101 et seq. and we are in agreement with his conclusion that such questions should be answered.

Section 3101(a) measures the scope of disclosure by materiality and necessity, regardless of which party bears the burden of proof.

Nichetta v. Lavender · filed 1975-05-07(a)

Thus, as under the old Civil Practice Act and its predecessor, the Code of Civil Procedure, burden of proof no longer is a criterion. Materiality and necessity now measure the scope of disclosure; within certain reasonable limits, of course.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and useful medical and psychological reports when a plaintiff’s physical and psychological condition is in controversy.

Brooks v. Hausauer · filed 1976-01-16(a)

The scope of disclosure is covered in CPLR 3101 (subd [a]), viz., "There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’. ... The pleadings are convincing that the infant plaintiff’s psychological and physical condition is in controversy and that the medical reports included in the pleadings mandate that the defendants should have access to psychological reports made prior to the accident if they are adequately to defend themselves against the allegations of the plaintiff.

Section 3101 limits the scope of examination requests to relevant matters.

Miles v. Wabco, Inc. · filed 1976-04-09

Plaintiffs’ CPLR 3111 production request items and CPLR 3101 examination-scope request items are within the guideline principles expressed in ... and Special Term’s order, ... was in all respects proper. However, the grant of plaintiffs’ requested production of discovery Items Nos. 6, 8, 9, 12, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 36 and 40, in addition to examination request Items Nos. 17, 18, 26, and 27, was in error, such items lacking requisite CPLR article 31 relevancy.

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of a spouse’s finances when alimony and support are not at issue and the disclosure would serve no relevant purpose.

Brenner v. Brenner · filed 1976-07-08(a)

No relevant purpose would be served by granting the wife discovery.

Section 3101 permits an examination before trial in a conversion action, limited to matters concerning the conversion claim, even when a related matrimonial action has different discovery limits.

Janssen v. Janssen · filed 1975-04-23

This motion by the plaintiff for an order pursuant to CPLR 3101 to take the deposition upon oral questions of the defendant, Robert P. Janssen, is granted to the extent noted below. ... However, as to the conversion action, the plaintiff is entitled to an examination before trial which shall be limited exclusively to the issues contained in the alleged cause of action for conversion and shall not include questions as to the general finances of the defendant.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material and necessary evidence, with usefulness and reason defining its scope.

860 Executive Towers, Inc v. Board of Assessors · filed 1975-10-27(a)

CPLR article 31 allows for full disclosure of evidence that is material and necessary (CPLR 3101, subd [a]). The test is one of usefulness and reason (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403). ... We will not sanction a fishing expedition for that is precisely what respondent’s request for disclosure constitutes. The court, in its discretion, denies respondent’s request for disclosure of the magnitude requested herein.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material and necessary evidence; a party cannot block access to potentially relevant records merely by asserting that they have no connection to the accident.

Braynard v. Morgan · filed 1975-12-08(a)

Disclosure is permitted of all evidence which is material and necessary (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]). ... We agree with defendant’s assertion that plaintiff Braynard cannot prevent disclosure by claiming that his confinement to the Little Hill Foundation has no connection at all with the accident.

Section 3101 requires documents sought for production during an oral examination to be material and necessary to the proceeding.

Wolfram v. Stokes · filed 1976-02-02

Production of documents under CPLR 3111 is limited to those which may be examined as an incident to oral examination (see Grow Constr. Co. v State of New York, 54 Misc 2d 108) providing, of course, they are material and necessary to the proceeding (CPLR 3101). All items demanded except those under C and E fall within that category.

Section 3101 does not require disclosure of information whose relevance to the claim is too remote.

Runalsv. Johnson · filed 1976-05-21

However, the relevance of the original construction cost of this property is so remote a consideration in determining the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to defendants in this case that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting a protective order.

Section 3101 permits discovery of evidence created after a claim arose if it is material to the issues.

Ribley v. Harsco Corp. · filed 1975-12-17(a)

As long as evidence is material to the issues, the fact that it may have come into existence after plaintiff’s claim arose does not prevent its discovery per se, providing it is material to the issues of the case (Abrams v Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 37 AD2d 833, 834).

Section 3101(a) permits examination of business records relevant to establishing a claimed interest in corporate profits before entitlement to an accounting is proved.

LoVerde v. Interex Design & Equipment Corp. · filed 1976-11-05(a)

Thus, plaintiff is entitled to examine the books and records of each defendant corporation with respect to its incorporation, including the minutes thereof, names of incorporators, officers and stockholders; to examine business records of the corporations and defendant Cantisano for entries indicating the nature of plaintiffs services, if any, to them and his status with respect to the defendants in connection therewith; entries of his cash contributions, if any, to them in 1973, of customers turned over to them by him, of payments made by any of defendants to him and records indicating the circumstances under which such payments were made to him.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of allegedly defective vehicle parts when a sudden change in the plaintiff’s account of the accident justifies it.

Gallo v. London Bus Co. · filed 1976-11-22(a)

The sudden shift in plaintiffs identification of the mechanism which caused the accident justifies the discovery now sought (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]; 3120, subd [a]).

Section 3101 permits further disclosure of records in proceedings to modify alimony and support.

Nogid v. Nogid · filed 1976-11-22

Further, the direction for further disclosure was not improper (see Domestic Relations Law, § 250; CPLR 3101; Perse v Perse, 52 AD2d 60).

Section 3101(a) calls for liberal disclosure when the possibility of fraud is asserted.

National Bank of North America v. Systems Home Improvement, Inc. · filed 1977-04-19(a)

Disclosure, under the circumstances revealed here, where the possibility of fraud has been asserted, is demanded under •the liberal construction of CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) as enunciated in Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101 requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecute or defend an action.

Town of Nassau v. Phoenix Assurance Co. · filed 1977-05-12

By statute, a full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action is required (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101 limits disclosure to material needed to present or defend the action; asset information unrelated to the issues at trial falls outside its scope.

Guadagno v. Diamond Tours & Travel, Inc. · filed 1977-10-25

CPLR 3101 provides that the scope of disclosure shall include all evidence and material necessary in the presentation or defense of an action. The interrogatory requesting the identity, location and dollar value of the assets of appellant and two nonparties, is unrelated and immaterial to the issues which will be presented at trial, and is therefore outside the scope of discovery as contemplated by CPLR 3101 (see, also, Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101 permits disclosure of evidence material and necessary to an action, including information that sharpens the issues and reduces delay.

Steri-Tex Corp. v. Best Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 1977-11-04

A party is entitled to disclosure of evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action, including information useful in sharpening the issues and reducing delay (CPLR 3101, 3131; Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403) and there is no requirement that he use one disclosure device before another (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3101:2, p 8).

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of detailed information about an agency’s reasoning when the parties’ disagreement raises issues of law.

Long Island College Hospital v. Whalen · filed 1976-12-23(a)

the detailed information as to the defendant’s reasoning process sought in subparagraphs "(v)”, "(vi)” and "(vii)” of paragraph "2(a)” of plaintiffs’ notice of motion is not "material and necessary” (CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of an auditor’s underlying records when they are material and necessary to resolving a disputed rent calculation.

Main Place Pharmacy Corp. v. Central Buffalo Project Corp. · filed 1977-01-14(a)

The material sought bears upon the ultimate determination made by plaintiff’s auditor, and in light of the disparity between the two audit reports, is "material and necessary” in the determination of the action (CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of information material and necessary to an action; relevant interrogatories may be allowed when they are not unreasonably oppressive.

Lincoln First Bank v. Rhoades · filed 1977-11-14(a)

Inasmuch as these interrogatories are material and necessary to the defense of the action and are not unreasonably oppressive, they were improperly stricken.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of facts that bear on the controversy and assist trial preparation, but does not require disclosure of irrelevant information.

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie · filed 1978-04-14(a)

We conclude, therefore, that Mr. Tuppen’s relationship to the Hurd litigation, if any, is not relevant in this breach of contract action. CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) requires "full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of burden of proof’. "Material and necessary” is liberally interpreted to require disclosure of any facts which bear on the controversy and which will assist in trial preparation by sharpening the issues and reducing prolixity (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 55 AD2d 466, 469).

Section 3101 gives the parties a right to pretrial examination.

Stepak v. Alexander's, Inc. · filed 1977-06-02

The parties clearly have a right to examination under CPLR 3101, and Special Term, Part 2, is properly the forum in which to resolve any issues that may arise at that time.

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of records that are not relevant and material to the proceeding.

In re S.E.B. · filed 1977-07-26(a)

The employment record of the agency caseworker is not relevant and material in the pending proceeding and should not be disclosed.

Section 3101(a) excludes an area of inquiry that is not relevant and material to prosecuting the action.

First National City Bank v. State · filed 1977-10-11(a)

It does not appear that inquiry into subdivision (c) thereof would be relevant and material to the prosecution of plaintiff’s action (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101 permits a court to vacate an entire oppressive interrogatory demand instead of reviewing each question for materiality and necessity.

Blasi v. Marine Midland Bank of Southeastern New York · filed 1977-11-28

The interrogatories, consisting of 49 pages, are unduly prolix, vexatious and unreasonably oppressive. Rather than burden this court by making a piecemeal determination of which interrogatories are material and necessary pursuant to CPLR 3101, the proper remedy is a vacatur of the entire demand (see ... 51 AD2d 702).

Section 3101’s liberal disclosure requirement extends to interrogatories, including requests to itemize actual damages and identify supporting documents.

Leeponis v. Garcy Corp. · filed 1978-03-27

Although a request for a monetary breakdown of the damages claimed is improper in a demand for a bill of particulars where only general damages are claimed (Brugman v County of Nassau, 41 AD2d 653), the scope of interrogatories is defined by CPLR 3131 to encompass the liberal disclosure requirement of CPLR 3101 (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,. 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101(a) calls for full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to an action, guided by usefulness and reason.

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. United States Steel Corp. · filed 1978-04-17(a)

Any application for disclosure pursuant to CPLR article 31 must also be viewed in terms of the overriding policy of that article which is to provide "full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” (CPLR 3101, subd [a].)

Section 3101 makes hospital birth records subject to full disclosure in a paternity proceeding.

Russo v. Teall · filed 1978-07-19

The hospital records in question can certainly be produced at the time of hearing pursuant to subpoena and should be subject to full disclosure (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101(a) requires pretrial disclosure of material and necessary evidence, including collateral source payments made relevant in a medical malpractice action.

Corter v. Luck · filed 1978-11-02(a)

Such matters, therefore, by virtue of this statutory enactment, are brought within CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) which requires full disclosure, before trial, of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defenses of an action.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of identifying information about people who supplied or helped prepare interrogatory answers, absent special circumstances justifying its denial.

Erwin Pearl, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. · filed 1978-04-24(a)

The general conclusion is clear that such information is not privileged as work product and, absent a specific demonstration of special circumstances, it is discoverable. ... There would appear to be no valid reason for granting discovery as to documents, used in the preparation of interrogatories, while denying information as to the individuals who provided the information.

Section 3101’s liberal disclosure requirement applies to interrogatories through CPLR 3131.

State of New York v. Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. · filed 1979-05-21

The scope of interrogatories, as defined by CPLR 3131, incorporates the liberal disclosure requirement of CPLR 3101 (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., supra).

Section 3101(a) permits pretrial examination of financial records when the information is material and necessary to the litigation.

Rusyniak v. Candlewick Construction, Inc. · filed 1978-05-26(a)

The Court of Appeals has stated that, "CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) should be construed, as the leading text on practice puts it, to permit discovery of testimony 'which is sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable’ [citation omitted]” (Allen v CrowellCollier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 55 AD2d 466, 469; Wolfe v Fazzini, 50 AD2d 723, 724). Plaintiff sought an examination of the financial statements and books of account showing the financial condition of the corporate defendant during the period January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1971. Special Term properly found that such financial information was "material and necessary”.

Section 3101(a) allows disclosure of an appraisal used to calculate reimbursement when the appraisal is material and necessary to the claim.

Barnes v. State · filed 1979-02-22(a)

The claimants’ affidavit adequately demonstrates then that the appraisal is material and necessary and meets the test of CPLR 3101 (subd [a]).

CPLR 3101 requires a showing that requested information is material and necessary; other tenants’ lease data was not subject to disclosure where the defendant identified no dispute over the parties’ agreed rent.

Genesee Management, Inc. v. Del Bello · filed 1979-04-06

Although defendant, by Interrogatory No. 7, seeks disclosure of data relating to other leases of premises in plaintiffs’ mall, he asserts no agreement or understanding of the parties contrary to that asserted by plaintiffs concerning the agreed rental. Thus it has not been demonstrated that the evidence sought is "material and necessary in the prosecution or defense” of the action (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of records that are material and necessary to a discrimination claim.

Thompson v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1979-04-13(a)

The information sought is prima facie material and necessary, and respondent should be directed to produce it in accordance with the subpoena (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 62 AD2d 1176, 1177; and also State Div. of Human Rights v Kilian Mfg. Corp., 35 NY2d 201, 209-210; Russo v Reader’s Digest, 91 Misc 2d 1, 2).

Section 3101 permits broad pretrial disclosure of material and necessary evidence to assist trial preparation.

In re Marilyn H. · filed 1979-07-26

All material and necessary evidence is included in the scope of disclosure, which may be obtained on notice without leave of the court (CPLR 3101, 3102). The words "material and necessary” have been liberally construed to allow for broad pretrial discovery to assist in trial preparation.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of a computer printout that is material and necessary to preparing a claim even if the printout may be inadmissible at trial.

Ball v. State · filed 1979-10-22(a)

Whether the printout or information contained therein will be inadmissible at trial, ostensibly on the grounds of incompetency, is not relevant to our inquiry here. ... As such, it is clear that claimants have shown that the requested computer printout qualifies as "evidence" which is "material and necessary" in the preparation of their respective claims.

CPLR 3101(a) permits disclosure only of matters relevant to trial, so a parent cannot compel disclosure of children’s assets for child support when the parents can fully support them.

Gold v. Gold · filed 1978-10-03(a)

New York’s liberal policy of disclosure can only extend to facts which will be in issue at trial. Unless the parents cannot fully support their children, the children’s assets may not be considered by the trial court in determining child support. It follows that in the circumstances herein, disclosure of the children’s income and assets may not be compelled.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of documents material and necessary to an action, but does not support an indiscriminate demand for all documents.

Butler v. District Council 37 · filed 1979-11-27

A notice of examination before trial may properly require the production of books, papers and other things material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action to be marked as exhibits and used at the examination (CPLR 3101, 3111). A blunderbuss notice does not comply with the statutory requirement.

Section 3101(a) calls for liberal disclosure and permits an examination when an earlier examination of the same witness concerned a different essential issue.

In re the Estate of Schneier · filed 1980-04-08(a)

The essential issue upon which Mr. Ogden was previously examined was quite different from the one now presented. CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) provides for full disclosure, and the courts are admonished to construe it liberally.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action.

Mohn Supply Co. v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc. · filed 1980-11-13(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary evidence, but does not require production of a spouse’s law firm client list to verify fees absent special circumstances and need when other financial discovery is available.

Stolowitz v. Stolowitz · filed 1980-12-10(a)

Regarding the scope of disclosure as it is governed by the CPLR the rule generally is that, except for certain specified exceptions, full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action is required (CPLR 3101, subd [a]). ... Failing a showing of special circumstances and need, the request by the plaintiff for the names and addresses of all the clients of defendant’s firm is neither necessary, nor is it proper here in view of the discovery consented to by the defendant, and the purpose stated by the plaintiff for such item of discovery.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of items material and necessary to prosecute an action.

People v. Skylift International, Inc. · filed 1979-10-29(a)

These items are "material and necessary” in the prosecution of appellant’s action (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure about the specific gun involved in the action, but not unrelated guns sold by the defendant.

Hudson v. Rolleri · filed 1980-09-22(a)

Under these circumstances, we do not doubt that it is "material and necessary” to the prosecution of this action for plaintiffs to obtain information concerning the specific B-B gun involved, particularly as regards the alleged sale of that gun by Jamesway to defendant Antonio Rolleri (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]; see, also, Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407). However, we find no such relevance to information pertaining to other B-B guns allegedly purchased by Jamesway for its Liberty store and sold therefrom.

Section 3101(a) requires information sought in discovery to be material and necessary to the defense of the action.

Vancek v. International Dynetics Corp. · filed 1980-11-25(a)

The information sought is not shown to be material and necessary to the defense of the action (CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101 requires disclosure of inadmissible testimony that may lead to admissible evidence.

Prink v. Rockefeller Center, Inc. · filed 1979-11-15

While plaintiffs testimony concerning what Dr. Doyle told her is clearly hearsay, that would not protect her from the disclosure required by CPLR 3101 which requires revelation of inadmissible testimony that may lead to discovery of admissible evidence (Baxter v Orans, 63 AD2d 875; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.05).

Section 3101 requires disclosure of medical, employment and school records when they are material and necessary to the defense.

Johnson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 1981-09-03

The authorizations sought by defendants for medical, employment and school records are for information which is material and necessary to the defense of this action (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101 requires disclosure of material and necessary records unless they are privileged or otherwise protected.

McKinney v. State · filed 1981-11-09

In essence, the items sought to be produced must be material and necessary (CPLR 3101, subd [a]); they must not be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure (CPLR 3101, subds [b], [c], [d], [g]); and they would have to be in the “possession, custody or control” of the person to be examined or the party served with the demand for production (CPLR 3111, 3120). ... In considering both the spirit and language of CPLR article 31 the court finds that the claimant is entitled to full and prompt disclosure.

Section 3101(a)(1) permits disclosure from a party or its employees of material and necessary evidence even if the evidence would not be admissible against the party deposed.

Hawkins v. Genesee Hospital · filed 1982-02-26(a)(1)

The discovery section of the CPLR, however, provides that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof by “a party” or an “employee of a party” (CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [1]). ... There is no requirement in the CPLR that the evidence soúght to be obtained be admissible against the party deposed. The protective order barring discovery must therefore be reversed.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of information that is needful and sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make obtaining it for trial preparation reasonable.

Goldberg v. Blue Cross of Northeastern New York, Inc. · filed 1981-05-28(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) provides for the “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action”, and this language in the statute should be interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure. To be considered “necessary” the information requested does not have to be indispensable, but only “needful” and sufficiently related to issues in litigation so that a party’s effort to obtain the information in preparation for trial is reasonable.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of medical records that may lead to relevant evidence about a claimed permanent injury.

Zydel v. Manges · filed 1981-09-11(a)

Liberal and broad discovery is the rule and where, as here, plaintiff has claimed a permanent neurological injury, the possible effects of plaintiff’s chronic alcoholism on such injury may well be a relevant issue. Disclosure is thus required of plaintiff’s Erie County medical records because they may contain information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence (Siegel, New York Practice, § 344, p 422).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of information sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make obtaining it for trial reasonable.

In re American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1981-12-17(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) provides: “There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof”. ... Discovery is to be allowed if the information sought “ ‘is sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable’ ” (pp 406-407). ... It appears that the information allowed by the order at Special Term will be useful in accomplishing that objective and, therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, respondent is entitled to obtain it.

CPLR 3101(a)’s liberal discovery standard does not warrant delaying trial for further discovery merely because a party substituted attorneys on the eve of trial.

Mitchell v. Wimet · filed 1981-07-02(a)

While the guidelines for discovery set forth in CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) are to be construed liberally with regard to what is “material and necessary” (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403), the substitution of attorneys on the eve of trial by the cross movant is not such an exceptional circumstance that delay of trial is warranted to permit further discovery. This is particularly true, where, as here, all of the parties have been deposed and experts’ reports exchanged.

Section 3101(a)’s liberal standard of materiality and necessity applies when the State is sued in its proprietary capacity.

Newstad v. State · filed 1981-11-20(a)

This court is of the opinion that, in cases such as the one at bar, where the State appears as a normal party and is sued in its proprietary capacity (as distinguished from its governmental capacity), the State may be deposed under the same generally liberal standards of materiality and necessity as apply, to a private party under the provisions of the CPLR.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of facts bearing on the controversy that will assist preparation for trial.

Maggio v. State · filed 1982-06-17(a)

The terms material and necessary are to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity, and though there may be a little more immediacy and substantiality to the word “material” than to “relevant” we believe that a broad interpretation of the words “material and necessary” is proper (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407).

Section 3101(a) calls for liberal disclosure of material and necessary information, but courts must deny demands that are overly burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or otherwise improper.

Capoccia v. Spiro · filed 1982-06-24(a)

The case of Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 NY2d 403) and its progeny have made it plain that, while the courts possess broad discretion in supervising discovery, that discretion is not unlimited and the courts are to apply a liberal interpretation to the phrase “material and necessary” as found in CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) so as to enlarge the permissible use of pretrial procedures (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3101:5, p 11). Of course, this is not to say that carte blanche demands are to be honored, and those demands which are unduly burdensome or lack specificity or seek privileged matter or seek irrelevant information or are otherwise improper must be denied. With these established principles in mind, and being aware of the early stage of this litigation, we conclude that Special Term’s grant of protection should have included demands d, e, h and j.

Section 3101(a) permits interrogatories seeking information material and necessary to an insurer’s fraud defense.

9h Realty Corp. v. Zurich Insurance · filed 1982-07-12(a)

It is clear that the interrogatories sought information which was material and necessary to the insurers’ claim of fraud (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]; Allen v Crowell-Coilier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary evidence, including bank records relevant to tracing assets.

In re Levine · filed 1982-11-08(a)

New York’s proce: dures mandate “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary”. (CPLR 3101, subd [a].) ... Here, where there were allegations of fraudulent concealment of assets by the decedent, and the movant’s argument is bolstered by the discovery of two New York bank accounts, the existence of which were denied prior to the issuance of the letters rogatory, it is clear that the bank records, past and present of the movant and his family, are “material” for the purpose of tracing assets in order to settle the distribution of the decedent’s estate.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure through interrogatories when the information sought is material and necessary to the defense of an action.

NOPA Realty Corp. v. Central Caterers, Inc. · filed 1983-01-10(a)

However, Special Term erred in granting that branch of plaintiff’s motion which was to strike certain other of appellants’ interrogatories since they are material and necessary to the defense of the instant action (CPLR 3101, subd [a]; Allen v Crowell-Coilier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406).

CPLR 3101 does not require disclosure of assessors’ methods when only the fairness of the final assessment is at issue.

City of Amsterdam v. Board of Assessors · filed 1982-12-30

The liberal interpretation given CPLR 3101 in Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 NY2d 403, 406-407) does not require a different result, for even under the standards set forth there the material sought must be “ ‘sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable’”. Since the methods used in making a specific assessment are irrelevant, disclosure of these methods cannot be said to relate to the product of the assessors, which is the only issue in litigation.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to an action, including evidentiary matter sought through interrogatories.

Medaris v. Vosburgh · filed 1983-04-25(a)

In any event, appellants’ interrogatories 49 through 64 were proper. ... CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) declares that “[tjhere shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (see, also, Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101(a) does not require a blood-grouping test when paternity is not in issue.

McCann v. McCann · filed 1983-05-25(a)

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff and her newborn child to submit to a blood-grouping test was properly denied. Paternity was not in issue inasmuch as defendant’s allegation of adultery had been dismissed (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101(a)’s “material and necessary” standard is construed liberally to require disclosure of any fact bearing on the controversy.

Pamela Equities Corp. v. Louis Frey Co. · filed 1983-07-08(a)

Rather “[t]he phrase ‘Material and Necessary' (CPLR 3101 [a]) is to be liberally construed to require disclosure of any fact bearing on the controversy.”

CPLR 3101 permits discovery of blood test results that are material and necessary to an issue in the action.

Marotta v. Hasto · filed 1983-07-18

The results fall within the scope of discovery contemplated by CPLR 3101 as material and necessary and therefore relevant to the issue presented (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of facts material and necessary to a defense, but does not require identifying individuals when their number suffices.

Holy Spirit Ass'n v. Brush · filed 1983-10-27(a)

The only issues to be resolved upon this appeal are the propriety of the language contained in certain interrogatories and the information sought to be discovered by them (CPLR 3101, subd [a]; 3131). ... Since the affirmative defense is, generally, geared to the number of people staying at the camp, we find no need to identify the names of individuals when the number thereof would suffice.

Section 3101(a) limits disclosure to evidence material and necessary to the action, so financial disclosure in a support proceeding need not be as searching as in an equitable distribution case.

E. M. v. G. S. · filed 1983-11-10(a)

Within this context, it must be remembered the general proscription of CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) is that disclosure is limited to “all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof” (emphasis added). This is a support case not an equitable distribution case. In these circumstances, financial disclosure need not be as searching as sought.

Section 3101(a) requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to prosecuting or defending an action.

Echevarrieta v. Migoya · filed 1983-11-28(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) provides for full disclosure of all evidence which is material and necessary to the prosecution and defense of an action.

Section 3101(a) creates a strong presumption that material medical records are discoverable when the patient has waived confidentiality.

Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center · filed 1983-12-01(a)

If the records are found generally to be material under CPLR 3101 and the patient is found to have waived the privilege of confidentiality, either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue, a strong presumption is created in favor of granting the motion to compel disclosure.

Section 3101(a) permits interrogatories seeking evidence material and necessary to an action.

E. Cuker, Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n · filed 1983-12-06(a)

Our examination of the interrogatories leads us to conclude that they are neither overly broad nor do they contain improper demands or questions, since they seek “evidence material and necessary in the prosecution * * * of an action” (CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material needed to prepare for trial, including evidence that may lead to admissible proof.

Fell v. Presbyterian Hospital · filed 1983-12-08(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]), which permits discovery of “all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” has been most liberally construed, with the term “evidence” held to include that which is required in preparation for trial.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure to be material and necessary to the action; an HLA blood test does not meet that requirement when paternity is not at issue in a child protective proceeding.

In re Ivette D. · filed 1983-03-23(a)

Furthermore, the information sought to be obtained from a CPLR 3121 (subd [a]) blood test must additionally meet the requirements pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) —. referable to disclosure under CPLR 3121 (subd [a]) — that disclosure be “material and necessary” in the prosecution or defense of an action. ... The HLA test, in the instant proceeding, is neither material nor necessary to the prosecution of the action.

CPLR 3101 does not require disclosure of documents that are not shown to be material or necessary to an issue in the litigation.

Shapiro v. Fine · filed 1983-06-23

The information sought in these two items is not shown to be material or necessary in connection with any issue in this litigation (CPLR 3101).

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of childbirth-class records sought to prove a collateral issue when the requesting party can testify about it.

Leromain v. Venduro · filed 1983-07-21(a)

In our view, these records are not material and necessary (CPLR 3101, subd [a]). The question of whether petitioner attended childbirth classes with respondent is a collateral issue, and petitioner can testify as to whether he accompanied respondent. Accordingly, his motion for discovery of those records was properly denied.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of off-site records that may show a party’s knowledge of a foreseeable risk, even if the records may not be admissible at trial.

State v. Monarch Chemicals, Inc. · filed 1983-03-29(a)

Chemical or geohydrological tests from other sites could show Jones’ knowledge of the effects of solvent spills and pollution, and Jones’ knowledge of what tests could have been performed at Vestal. As with the governmental warnings, the question is not whether these tests are ultimately admissible, but whether they are relevant at this stage. Jones should answer this paragraph as it relates to tests with solvents.

Section 3101(a) calls for liberal disclosure of facts bearing on the controversy, but questions insufficiently relevant to the dispute need not be answered.

Arthur Young & Co. v. State · filed 1984-03-29(a)

The Court of Appeals has held that the “material and necessary” test set forth in CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) is to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial, sharpen the issues and reduce delay ... Here, the court found that Arthur Young’s attempts to question Nelligan about other complaints, Grand Jury proceedings and the reasons for his transfer were not “sufficiently relevant to warrant disclosure”. We agree.

Section 3101(a) limits disclosure to evidence relevant to the issues in controversy, so it does not require depositions of counsel about a collateral witness-impersonation hoax.

Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance · filed 1984-05-22(a)

In short, it must be relevant to the issue or issues in controversy (Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C310L5, p 11). ... To permit the trial of this action to be diverted from the issue of employee thefts to the issue of who was responsible for the production of the false Bruno will, instead of “sharpening the issues” blunt them and add to the “delay and prolixity” which normally inheres in trials.

Section 3101(a) permits broad disclosure of material and necessary evidence, but a court may limit requests for records insufficiently related to the transactions at issue.

Nitz v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. · filed 1984-06-07(a)

On this record, we cannot say that a clear abuse exists. The securities material sought was basically overexpansive and not sufficiently related to the transactions in issue.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of information material and necessary to an action, within the issues framed by the pleadings.

Mavroudis v. State Wide Insurance · filed 1984-06-18(a)

Aside from interrogatories 9 and 10, all information requested by plaintiff is “material and necessary” to the prosecution of this action, as that term is defined in Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 NY2d 403) and, thus, is subject to disclosure (see CPLR 3101, subd [a]).

Section 3101 permits disclosure of hearsay that may lead to admissible evidence, but questions irrelevant to the issues in the action need not be answered.

Shapiro v. Levine · filed 1984-10-01

While plaintiff’s testimony concerning what her prior treating physicians told her is clearly hearsay, that would not protect her from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 which requires the revelation of inadmissible testimony that may lead to discovery of admissible evidence (Prink v Rockefeller Center, 48 NY2d 309, 314; Baxter v Orans, 63 AD2d 875; Shutt v Pooley, 43 AD2d 59, 60). Nevertheless, we concur with Special Term’s conclusion that the questions were improper as disclosure of the subject conversations for the purported purpose of establishing the extent to which plaintiff, a lay person, understood her previous physicians’ expert opinions regarding the nature of her injury ... and her prospects for recovery are not relevant to any issue in this malpractice action.

Section 3101(a) does not require disclosure of personnel records when a broad demand has only a tenuous connection to information material and necessary to the action.

Conway v. Bayley Seton Hospital · filed 1984-10-29(a)

However, the method of discovery directed here, namely, the discovery and inspection of personnel records pertaining to a group of hospital employees, which is neither limited in terms of the time period covered, nor the degree of contact with the nonparty patient and whose connection with that individual may prove tenuous at best, can hardly be characterized as reasonably calculated to obtain relevant information material and necessary to the prosecution of plaintiff’s action (see Herscovit v County of Nassau, 89 AD2d 598; Rametti v Judge, 87 AD2d 814).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of relevant information that may lead to relevant evidence, even if the information itself would not be admissible at trial.

Rubino v. Albany Medical Center Hospital · filed 1984-11-09(a)

The information sought need not qualify as evidence admissible at the trial of an action but only lead to such evidence. ... Disclosure is required as to all relevant information calculated to lead to relevant evidence.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of information useful for good-faith trial preparation even if it would not be admissible at trial.

Moroze & Sherman, P. C. v. Moroze · filed 1984-11-20

Thus, defendant should be entitled to conduct discovery to the full extent permissible under CPLR 3101, restricted only by a test “for materiality ‘of usefulness and reason’ ” for the evidence and its need in good-faith preparation for trial (Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 608) and not by the strict rules of admissibility of evidence at trial.

Section 3101(a) permits broad disclosure of information material and necessary to proving a claim; a plaintiff need not establish the claim before obtaining discovery.

AGH Distributors, Inc. v. Silvertone Fasteners, Inc. · filed 1984-11-20(a)

This information is clearly material and necessary to plaintiff’s prosecution of the instant action, particularly with respect to the issue of compensatory damages. Discovery is not limited to situations where the plaintiff has already established its cause of action but is designed precisely for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to prove its case. In that regard, the scope of disclosure under CPLR 3120 is no different ... than it is under CPLR 3101 (subd [a]).

Section 3101 does not authorize discovery of information beyond its scope, and interrogatories seeking such information may be stricken.

Manzo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. · filed 1984-12-17

Lastly, Special Term did not err in striking interrogatories 30, 33 through 35 and 41 and 42 because the requested information is patently beyond the scope of discovery authorized by CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a)’s liberal disclosure policy requires expanding the period covered by discovery when earlier events are relevant.

DeOlden v. State · filed 1985-01-28(a)

Based upon the new material submitted, which tends to establish that the intersection at which the claimant David DeOlden was injured had become a source of concern to local residents prior to August 14, 1978, we have reached the conclusion that the liberal policy of disclosure incorporated into the CPLR (CPLR 3101, subd [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Echevarrieta v Migoya, 97 AD2d 832) requires that the period of permissible disclosure regarding the items in issue be expanded, as requested, to four years preceding the date of the underlying occurrence.

Section 3101(a) requires a showing that requested medical records are material and necessary to the defense.

Scharlack v. Richmond Memorial Hospital · filed 1984-06-25(a)

Moreover, appellants have presented no evidence that the medical records of Susan and William, relating to aspects of their histories other than their delivery and immediate postnatal care, are material and necessary to the defense of this action (CPLR 3101, subd [a]). Therefore, appellants are not entitled to the medical records of Susan and William Scharlack, except for those records concerning their delivery and immediate postnatal care, which should be treated in the same manner as the medical records of their mother.

Section 3101(a) requires a party seeking disclosure of a nonparty’s medical records to show that the requested records are relevant or reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence; conclusory assertions of relevance are insufficient.

Herbst v. Bruhn · filed 1984-12-24(a)

Further, an attorney’s affidavit in support of disclosure containing bare unsubstantiated conclusory statements as to relevance is insufficient to establish a factual predicate for the disclosure of the medical records of a nonparty whose personal physical condition is not in issue (cf. Koump v Smith, supra; Vohs v Long Is. Jewish Hosp., 89 Misc 2d 347).

CPLR 3101(a) requires full disclosure of evidence material and necessary to an action, regardless of the burden of proof.

Armitage v. Armitage · filed 1985-12-20(a)

We do not find the notice to produce to be overly broad. CPLR 3101 (a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.

Section 3101 requires materiality, necessity, and specificity when seeking disclosure of a decedent’s papers from a preliminary executor.

In re the Estate of Devine · filed 1986-01-24

Thus, the new section was as stringent as Civil Practice Act § 288 in its requirements of materiality, necessity and specificity of description. It is highly improbable that the Legislature by including the broad and general quoted phrase intended (without any explanatory comment) to supersede the disclosure requirements of the newly enacted CPLR 3101.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of material shown through expert opinion to be relevant and necessary to the defense.

Yetman v. St. Charles Hospital · filed 1985-07-15(a)

We are also satisfied that defendants have clearly established through expert opinion that the material sought is both relevant and necessary to the defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]; cf. Herbst v Bruhn, supra).

Section 3101(a) permits broad disclosure of material and necessary evidence, but excludes an attorney retainer agreement when the claim for counsel fees rests on a written guarantee rather than the retainer.

Central National Bank v. Thorington · filed 1985-12-05(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) provides for the disclosure of all material and necessary evidence and is liberally construed in favor of disclosure (Goldberg v Blue Cross, 81 AD2d 995). ... We do find that the retainer agreement between plaintiff and its attorney is immaterial since the claim for counsel fees is premised on the written guarantee and not the retainer.