Bolotoff v. Sonotone Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bolotoff v. Sonotone Corp.

273 A.D. 818, 76 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D. 818 (Bolotoff v. Sonotone Corp.) 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

Bolotoff v. Sonotone Corp., 273 A.D. 818, 76 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff wife, and companion action by plaintiff husband for loss of services. Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for an examination of the defendant by a named employee under a commission, upon written interrogatories, modified on the facts by inserting in the first ordering paragraph item 5. As thus modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. Item 5 was not opposed by the defendant and was proper in form. {Scheurenbrand v. Ferrizz, 262 App. Div. 1035; Foley v. Long Island B. B. Go., 242 App. Div. 780.) Its omission may have been due to inadvertence and could have been the subject of remedy by a motion for resettlement of the order. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., not voting.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff wife, and companion action by plaintiff husband for loss of services. Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for an examination of the defendant by a named employee under a commission, upon written interrogatories, modified on the facts by inserting in the first ordering paragraph item 5. As thus modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. Item 5 was not opposed by the defendant and was proper in form. {Scheurenbrand v. Ferrizz, 262 App. Div. 1035; Foley v. Long Island B. B. Go., 242 App. Div. 780.) Its omission may have been due to inadvertence and could have been the subject of remedy by a motion for resettlement of the order. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 818, 76 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolotoff-v-sonotone-corp-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack