Bulova Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bulova Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.

4 A.D.2d 747, 165 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 747 (Bulova Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch 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

Bulova Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 4 A.D.2d 747, 165 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for alleged intentional injury to plaintiff’s business and to enjoin the alleged injurious acts. Order dated September 25, modifying defendants’ notice of examination, modified by adding “(b), (e) and” between “4” and “(d)” in the first ordering paragraph. As thus modified, order affirmed, without costs. Order modifying plaintiff’s notice of examination and order modifying defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, both dated September 25, 1956 and order dated November 5, 1956 denying defendants’ motion to vacate or modify items 6 and 10 in plaintiff’s notice of examination, affirmed, without costs. Items 4 (b) and 4 (e) in defendants’ notice of examination should have been deleted as unnecessary. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for alleged intentional injury to plaintiff’s business and to enjoin the alleged injurious acts. Order dated September 25, modifying defendants’ notice of examination, modified by adding “(b), (e) and” between “4” and “(d)” in the first ordering paragraph. As thus modified, order affirmed, without costs. Order modifying plaintiff’s notice of examination and order modifying defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, both dated September 25, 1956 and order dated November 5, 1956 denying defendants’ motion to vacate or modify items 6 and 10 in plaintiff’s notice of examination, affirmed, without costs. Items 4 (b) and 4 (e) in defendants’ notice of examination should have been deleted as unnecessary. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 747, 165 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulova-watch-co-v-benrus-watch-co-nyappdiv-1957.