Du Mont Emerson Corp. v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Du Mont Emerson Corp. v. Gordon

15 A.D.2d 890, 225 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 890 (Du Mont Emerson Corp. v. Gordon) 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

Du Mont Emerson Corp. v. Gordon, 15 A.D.2d 890, 225 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

The demand here, consisting of upwards of 170 paragraphs and subparagraphs, does seek considerable matter either purely evidentiary, irrelevant or otherwise improper. To fully comply with the demand would be so “burdensome” that “compliance will involve a task that is unreasonable to exact.” (See Helfant v. Rappoport, 14 A D 2d 764.) The defendants were in default but a few days when the motion to preclude was made, and, in opposition to the motion, they requested to be relieved of their default. Under the special circumstances here, we conclude that the defendants should be given an opportunity to test the propriety of the demand upon terms as aforesaid. (See Ferri v. Greater New York Brewery, 266 App. Div. 1005; Universal Metal Prods, v. De-Mornay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575; Inter Co. Painting Co. v. 200 East End Ave. Corp., 286 App. Div. 482; Mensh v. 12 Beekman Place, 11 A D 2d 642.) Settle order on notice. Concur —Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

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

The demand here, consisting of upwards of 170 paragraphs and subparagraphs, does seek considerable matter either purely evidentiary, irrelevant or otherwise improper. To fully comply with the demand would be so “burdensome” that “compliance will involve a task that is unreasonable to exact.” (See Helfant v. Rappoport, 14 A D 2d 764.) The defendants were in default but a few days when the motion to preclude was made, and, in opposition to the motion, they requested to be relieved of their default. Under the special circumstances here, we conclude that the defendants should be given an opportunity to test the propriety of the demand upon terms as aforesaid. (See Ferri v. Greater New York Brewery, 266 App. Div. 1005; Universal Metal Prods, v. De-Mornay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575; Inter Co. Painting Co. v. 200 East End Ave. Corp., 286 App. Div. 482; Mensh v. 12 Beekman Place, 11 A D 2d 642.) Settle order on notice. Concur —Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 890, 225 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-mont-emerson-corp-v-gordon-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack