Fiederlein v. Hochberg Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiederlein v. Hochberg Bros.

73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 591 (Fiederlein v. Hochberg Bros.) 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

Fiederlein v. Hochberg Bros., 73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 14, 1978, which denied their motion for a protective order with respect to respondents’ demand for discovery of an expert’s report and photographs. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs’ time to comply with the order under review is extended until 10 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Under the unusual circumstances of this case the order was warranted (see 22 NYCRR 675.7). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 14, 1978, which denied their motion for a protective order with respect to respondents’ demand for discovery of an expert’s report and photographs. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs’ time to comply with the order under review is extended until 10 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Under the unusual circumstances of this case the order was warranted (see 22 NYCRR 675.7). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiederlein-v-hochberg-bros-nyappdiv-1979.