Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 98 published articles analyzing discovery issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Discovery disputes frequently arise in first-party insurance cases, particularly regarding what documents insurers must produce during litigation. The key question often centers on whether materials in an insurer’s claim file were prepared for litigation purposes or as part of routine business operations. This distinction carries significant legal weight, as it determines whether the attorney work product doctrine shields these documents from disclosure.
The First Department’s decision in Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner provides important guidance on this issue, establishing clear parameters for when first-party insurance files become discoverable. Understanding these boundaries is crucial for both insureds seeking documentation and insurers protecting privileged materials. This ruling builds upon established precedent while clarifying the scope of protection available to insurance companies during discovery proceedings.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07751 (1st Dept. 2019)
“Documents in an insurer’s claim file, including an accident investigation report, that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure (see CPLR 3101; Recant v Harwood, 222 AD2d 372, 373-374 ). Although documents in a first-party insurance action prepared in an insurer’s ordinary course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject coverage are discoverable (see CPLR 3101; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 ), there is no indication that such documents are being protected here.”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Key Takeaway
The court draws a critical distinction between litigation-prepared materials (which are protected) and routine business investigation documents (which are discoverable). Insurance companies cannot claim blanket protection over their entire claim file—only materials specifically prepared in anticipation of litigation qualify for work product immunity. This ruling reinforces that ordinary coverage investigations remain subject to discovery in first-party insurance disputes.
Related Articles
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Understanding Discovery Rules and Summary Judgment Timing in NY Personal Injury Cases
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- Recent procedural developments in NY no-fault insurance law
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
98 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
Jumped the gun on preclusion
Appellate Term reverses premature discovery preclusion order, ruling employee with knowledge can verify interrogatories and sanctions require willful misconduct.
Jun 18, 2012
Civil Procedure Pitfalls: The High Cost of Improper Note of Issue Filing in New York
Costly consequences of improper Note of Issue filing in NY civil procedure. Expert analysis of Ikeda v Tedesco sanctions. Call (516) 750-0595.
Feb 16, 2010
Limits on Medical Record Discovery in New York Personal Injury Cases
Spencer v Willard J. Price shows New York courts limit medical record discovery to the conditions a personal injury plaintiff places in controversy.
Dec 1, 2017
Discovery sanction of dismissal was warranted
New York court upholds dismissal of no-fault insurance case for willful discovery violations under CPLR 3126, demonstrating when drastic sanctions are warranted.
Jul 7, 2014Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a discovery matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
