A. Tarricone, Inc. v. DHI Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. Tarricone, Inc. v. DHI Enterprises, Inc.

82 A.D.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 901 (A. Tarricone, Inc. v. DHI Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Tarricone, Inc. v. DHI Enterprises, Inc., 82 A.D.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered and for services rendered, in which defendant counterclaims alleging that-the goods sold were, inter alia, adulterated, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered April 25, 1980, as, in part, granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted the protective order with respect to Items Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 and the protective order is denied as to said Items. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant. The information with respect to which the protective order is hereby stricken might assist defendant in preparing its counterclaim and, hence, is discoverable {see Allen v Crowell-CollierPub. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered and for services rendered, in which defendant counterclaims alleging that-the goods sold were, inter alia, adulterated, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered April 25, 1980, as, in part, granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted the protective order with respect to Items Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 and the protective order is denied as to said Items. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant. The information with respect to which the protective order is hereby stricken might assist defendant in preparing its counterclaim and, hence, is discoverable {see Allen v Crowell-CollierPub. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-tarricone-inc-v-dhi-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack