E. Cuker, Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

E. Cuker, Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

107 A.D.2d 607, 491 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42602

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.2d 607 (E. Cuker, Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n) 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

E. Cuker, Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n, 107 A.D.2d 607, 491 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered April 23, 1984, granting defendant’s motion to reargue its earlier motion for an order vacating plaintiffs’ entire set of interrogatories, which motion had been denied, and, on reargument, granting the motion, unanimously modified, on the law, [608]*608with costs and disbursements, to the extent of denying the motion to vacate and, except as thus modified, affirmed.

It was error to vacate plaintiffs’ set of interrogatories, the propriety of which has been previously upheld in E. Cuker, Inc. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn. (98 AD2d 621) and Henning v United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (89 AD2d 1066), where essentially identical interrogatories were involved. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered April 23, 1984, granting defendant’s motion to reargue its earlier motion for an order vacating plaintiffs’ entire set of interrogatories, which motion had been denied, and, on reargument, granting the motion, unanimously modified, on the law, [608]*608with costs and disbursements, to the extent of denying the motion to vacate and, except as thus modified, affirmed.

It was error to vacate plaintiffs’ set of interrogatories, the propriety of which has been previously upheld in E. Cuker, Inc. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn. (98 AD2d 621) and Henning v United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (89 AD2d 1066), where essentially identical interrogatories were involved. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 607, 491 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-cuker-inc-v-new-york-property-insurance-underwriting-assn-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack