Adam Young, Inc. v. Ivy Broadcasting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adam Young, Inc. v. Ivy Broadcasting Co.

22 A.D.2d 651, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3132

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 651 (Adam Young, Inc. v. Ivy Broadcasting Co.) 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

Adam Young, Inc. v. Ivy Broadcasting Co., 22 A.D.2d 651, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 31, 1964, relative to the examination of defendant and the production of its records, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the expenses referred to in the second ordering paragraph shall be paid by defendant instead of plaintiff, and that defendant shall produce, in addition to the correspondence referred to in the fifth ordering paragraph, any other documents or records which in any way relate to the level of performance expected of plaintiff, and, as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. Consent to the modifications is contained in defendant’s brief, and we see no reason to alter Special Term’s disposition in other respects. The point that defendant waived its right to object to the scope of the notice of examination was not raised below, and disregard of that fact is not warranted by this record. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J.j Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 31, 1964, relative to the examination of defendant and the production of its records, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the expenses referred to in the second ordering paragraph shall be paid by defendant instead of plaintiff, and that defendant shall produce, in addition to the correspondence referred to in the fifth ordering paragraph, any other documents or records which in any way relate to the level of performance expected of plaintiff, and, as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. Consent to the modifications is contained in defendant’s brief, and we see no reason to alter Special Term’s disposition in other respects. The point that defendant waived its right to object to the scope of the notice of examination was not raised below, and disregard of that fact is not warranted by this record. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J.j Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 651, 252 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adam-young-inc-v-ivy-broadcasting-co-nyappdiv-1964.