Firsching v. Central New York Power Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Firsching v. Central New York Power Corp.

275 A.D.2d 899

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

DecidedMay 19, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 899 (Firsching v. Central New York Power Corp.) 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

Firsching v. Central New York Power Corp., 275 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The examination permitted is too broad in scope and is not limited as to the period of time concerning which the plaintiff is authorized to make inquiry of the defendant’s officers, agents and employees. The record does not contain sufficient facts to permit the court to modify the order. If a new application is made the supporting affidavit should state the date, or approximate date when the defendant replaced the regulator, meter, and attachments, and the order should limit the examination from the date when such replacements were made to the time when the explosion occurred. It should further be limited to permit the plaintiffs to inquire into only those matters alleged in paragraph “Seventh” of the complaint. All concur. (The order grants plaintiffs’ motion for an examination of defendant as an adverse party before trial and denies defendant’s cross motion for judgment on the pleadings.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The examination permitted is too broad in scope and is not limited as to the period of time concerning which the plaintiff is authorized to make inquiry of the defendant’s officers, agents and employees. The record does not contain sufficient facts to permit the court to modify the order. If a new application is made the supporting affidavit should state the date, or approximate date when the defendant replaced the regulator, meter, and attachments, and the order should limit the examination from the date when such replacements were made to the time when the explosion occurred. It should further be limited to permit the plaintiffs to inquire into only those matters alleged in paragraph “Seventh” of the complaint. All concur. (The order grants plaintiffs’ motion for an examination of defendant as an adverse party before trial and denies defendant’s cross motion for judgment on the pleadings.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firsching-v-central-new-york-power-corp-nyappdiv-1949.