Farrell Lines Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrell Lines Inc. v. City of New York

29 A.D.2d 850, 289 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 850 (Farrell Lines Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Farrell Lines Inc. v. City of New York, 29 A.D.2d 850, 289 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 11, 1967, granting issuance of a commission on written questions unanimously modified, on the facts and the law and as a matter of discretion, to provide that on plaintiff’s option the examination of the witness may be had on open commission, each party to pay his own expenses which may be taxed as costs against the losing party, and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The procedure indicated in the dispositive sentence is that prevailing in this Department where an examination upon interrogatories is objected to on the ground that an oral examination is more desirable (Wálborsky v. Wolf, 28 A D 2d 1120; Pakter v. Lilly & Go., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Go., 19 A D 2d 810). Settle order on notice. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered October 11, 1967, granting issuance of a commission on written questions unanimously modified, on the facts and the law and as a matter of discretion, to provide that on plaintiff’s option the examination of the witness may be had on open commission, each party to pay his own expenses which may be taxed as costs against the losing party, and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The procedure indicated in the dispositive sentence is that prevailing in this Department where an examination upon interrogatories is objected to on the ground that an oral examination is more desirable (Wálborsky v. Wolf, 28 A D 2d 1120; Pakter v. Lilly & Go., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Go., 19 A D 2d 810). Settle order on notice. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 850, 289 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-lines-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.