Curea v. Romonel Knitting Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curea v. Romonel Knitting Mills, Inc.

45 A.D.2d 840, 358 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 840 (Curea v. Romonel Knitting Mills, Inc.) 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

Curea v. Romonel Knitting Mills, Inc., 45 A.D.2d 840, 358 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover the price of a sale of corporate stock, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 24, 1973, which (1) denied their motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s notice for discovery and ,{2) directed production of the items in question. Order modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision that defendants’ “ motion is denied ”, the following: “ except that it is granted to the extent that items 7 and 9 are struck from the notice for discovery ”, As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The discovery and inspection shall proceed at the place set forth in the order under review at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Defendants have denied every allegation of the four causes of action. The wide scope of disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) (Allen v. Crowell-Coilier Pub. Co., 21 N Y 2d 403) applies to discovery proceedings under CPLR 3120 (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, [841]*841N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3120.18). However, Items Nos. 7 and 9 of plaintiff’s notice for discovery are overly broad; those portions thereof which are proper are covered by Items Nos. 6 and 8. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover the price of a sale of corporate stock, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 24, 1973, which (1) denied their motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s notice for discovery and ,{2) directed production of the items in question. Order modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision that defendants’ “ motion is denied ”, the following: “ except that it is granted to the extent that items 7 and 9 are struck from the notice for discovery ”, As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The discovery and inspection shall proceed at the place set forth in the order under review at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Defendants have denied every allegation of the four causes of action. The wide scope of disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) (Allen v. Crowell-Coilier Pub. Co., 21 N Y 2d 403) applies to discovery proceedings under CPLR 3120 (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, [841]*841N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3120.18). However, Items Nos. 7 and 9 of plaintiff’s notice for discovery are overly broad; those portions thereof which are proper are covered by Items Nos. 6 and 8. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 840, 358 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curea-v-romonel-knitting-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1974.