Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. v. Barletta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. v. Barletta

21 A.D.2d 768, 250 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511

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

DecidedJune 16, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 768 (Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. v. Barletta) 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

Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. v. Barletta, 21 A.D.2d 768, 250 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 16, 1964, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order and vacating plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial of defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants are directed to submit to an oral examination by plaintiff in New York City within six months from the date of the order to be entered hereon. Defendants shall serve upon plaintiff five days’ notice of the date and time of their availability for examination at the place therefor designated in said order. The expenses are to be borne initially by defendants and to be taxable as costs in the event defendants prevail in the action. Defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing hardship. (United Refrigerator Co. v. Rose, 19 A D 2d 809; Schoen v. Morgan Trucking Co., 13 A D 2d 622.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 16, 1964, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order and vacating plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial of defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants are directed to submit to an oral examination by plaintiff in New York City within six months from the date of the order to be entered hereon. Defendants shall serve upon plaintiff five days’ notice of the date and time of their availability for examination at the place therefor designated in said order. The expenses are to be borne initially by defendants and to be taxable as costs in the event defendants prevail in the action. Defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing hardship. (United Refrigerator Co. v. Rose, 19 A D 2d 809; Schoen v. Morgan Trucking Co., 13 A D 2d 622.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 768, 250 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairchild-camera-instrument-corp-v-barletta-nyappdiv-1964.