Boxer v. Weis, Voisin & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boxer v. Weis, Voisin & Co.

40 A.D.2d 639, 336 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 639 (Boxer v. Weis, Voisin & 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

Boxer v. Weis, Voisin & Co., 40 A.D.2d 639, 336 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 17, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion of plaintiff-appellant for further examination of defendant-respondent granted. [640]*640Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1972, denying reargument, unanimously dismissed as academic and nonappealable. Appellant shall recover of respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Special Term apparently relied upon the contention of defendant that the information sought is in the hands of a former employee. There is nothing to show that the information plaintiff seeks is not in the hands of other employees nor in defendant’s records. It is also observed that no motion was made for a protective order when further examination was demanded. It is now incumbent upon defendant to produce an employee familiar with the facts or make a satisfactory showing of unavailability thereof. Concur—McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Steuer and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 17, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion of plaintiff-appellant for further examination of defendant-respondent granted. [640]*640Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1972, denying reargument, unanimously dismissed as academic and nonappealable. Appellant shall recover of respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Special Term apparently relied upon the contention of defendant that the information sought is in the hands of a former employee. There is nothing to show that the information plaintiff seeks is not in the hands of other employees nor in defendant’s records. It is also observed that no motion was made for a protective order when further examination was demanded. It is now incumbent upon defendant to produce an employee familiar with the facts or make a satisfactory showing of unavailability thereof. Concur—McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Steuer and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 639, 336 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boxer-v-weis-voisin-co-nyappdiv-1972.