Bynum v. Feingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bynum v. Feingold

29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 559 (Bynum v. Feingold) 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

Bynum v. Feingold, 29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 10, 1967 and made upon reargument, as directed appellant to furnish plaintiffs with copies of “ all ” labels utilized on cans containing paint manufactured, etc., on appellant’s premises. Order modified by inserting in the last decretal paragraph of the order, after the words “ copies of all the different labels utilized on cans of”, the words “ 100% alkyd flat enamel”. As so modified, order [560]*560affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the discovery order should be limited to labels affixed to cans containing the kind of paint which the complaint alleges was bought by plaintiff Bynum. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 10, 1967 and made upon reargument, as directed appellant to furnish plaintiffs with copies of “ all ” labels utilized on cans containing paint manufactured, etc., on appellant’s premises. Order modified by inserting in the last decretal paragraph of the order, after the words “ copies of all the different labels utilized on cans of”, the words “ 100% alkyd flat enamel”. As so modified, order [560]*560affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the discovery order should be limited to labels affixed to cans containing the kind of paint which the complaint alleges was bought by plaintiff Bynum. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bynum-v-feingold-nyappdiv-1967.