Bosurgi v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bosurgi v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.

30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3214

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 950 (Bosurgi v. Chemical Bank New York Trust 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

Bosurgi v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., 30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered March 4,1968, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, vacating defendant’s notice to take the deposition of plaintiff Emilio Bosurgi, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements. In view of the statement of plaintiffs’ attorney that Emilio Bosurgi, a native of Italy, will not attend the trial, the examination at defendant’s option may be had in Messina, Italy, by written interrogatories or upon open commission. If defendant elects the latter, the parties shall pay their respective expenses, which may be taxed as costs by the party prevailing. (Farrell Lines v. City of New York, 29 A D 2d 850; Pakter v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810.) It appears that Emilio Bosurgi signed at least one document ratifying the alleged unauthorized transaction and plaintiff Leone Bosurgi admits he had a conversation with his brother before his brother signed the letter. In the circumstances the testimony of plaintiff Emilio Bosurgi is relevant. Order entered on November 27, 1967, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Tilzer, MeGivern, McNally and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, entered March 4,1968, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, vacating defendant’s notice to take the deposition of plaintiff Emilio Bosurgi, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements. In view of the statement of plaintiffs’ attorney that Emilio Bosurgi, a native of Italy, will not attend the trial, the examination at defendant’s option may be had in Messina, Italy, by written interrogatories or upon open commission. If defendant elects the latter, the parties shall pay their respective expenses, which may be taxed as costs by the party prevailing. (Farrell Lines v. City of New York, 29 A D 2d 850; Pakter v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810.) It appears that Emilio Bosurgi signed at least one document ratifying the alleged unauthorized transaction and plaintiff Leone Bosurgi admits he had a conversation with his brother before his brother signed the letter. In the circumstances the testimony of plaintiff Emilio Bosurgi is relevant. Order entered on November 27, 1967, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Tilzer, MeGivern, McNally and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosurgi-v-chemical-bank-new-york-trust-co-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack