Fiore v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiore v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N. A.

55 A.D.2d 874, 390 N.Y.S.2d 115

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 874 (Fiore v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N. A.) 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

Fiore v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N. A., 55 A.D.2d 874, 390 N.Y.S.2d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 30, 1976, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and defendants-respondents’ motion for a protective order denied, with $40 costs and disbursements to appellant. The action is for brokerage commissions. Plaintiff-appellant noticed examination of defendants here. Defendants moved for a protective order. Special Term granted the application on the basis of an affidavit by counsel claiming conclusorily, without stating a basis therefor, that it would be a hardship for his clients' to come here to be examined. "Defendant failed to demonstrate a hardship. Without such a showing, the nonresidence of defendant does not preclude an examination here. (Gazerwitz v Adrian, 28 AD2d 556, 557.)” (Santamaria v Walt Disney World, 51 AD2d 959, 960.) Defendants-respondents shall appear accordingly for examination on 15 days’ notice or, if defendants so elect, the examination shall proceed in Florida provided that defendants pay all expenses in connection therewith. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 30, 1976, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and defendants-respondents’ motion for a protective order denied, with $40 costs and disbursements to appellant. The action is for brokerage commissions. Plaintiff-appellant noticed examination of defendants here. Defendants moved for a protective order. Special Term granted the application on the basis of an affidavit by counsel claiming conclusorily, without stating a basis therefor, that it would be a hardship for his clients' to come here to be examined. "Defendant failed to demonstrate a hardship. Without such a showing, the nonresidence of defendant does not preclude an examination here. (Gazerwitz v Adrian, 28 AD2d 556, 557.)” (Santamaria v Walt Disney World, 51 AD2d 959, 960.) Defendants-respondents shall appear accordingly for examination on 15 days’ notice or, if defendants so elect, the examination shall proceed in Florida provided that defendants pay all expenses in connection therewith. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 874, 390 N.Y.S.2d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiore-v-sun-bank-of-bal-harbour-n-a-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack