Eiss v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
247 A.D.2d 913, 668 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1258
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Eiss v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 275 A.D.2d 919 →
Opinion
Order unanimously reversed on [914]*914the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In this personal injury action, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Peter Eiss to demonstrate on videotape the manner in which he was using a jointer-planer at the time he was injured (see, Dale v Emerson Elec. Co., 219 AD2d 815). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Discovery.)
Memorandum: In
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eiss v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 247 A.D.2d 913, 668 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).
247 A.D.2d 913 (Eiss v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dale v. Emerson Electric Co.
219 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)