Fishman v. Luback

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fishman v. Luback

10 A.D.2d 863, 201 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 863 (Fishman v. Luback) 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

Fishman v. Luback, 10 A.D.2d 863, 201 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by respondent’s negligence in operating a motor vehicle so as to strike and injure appellant’s intestate, a pedestrian, the appeal is from so much of an order which granted reargument as, on reargument, adhered to the original determination denying appellant’s motion to overrule objections made to certain questions asked respondent on an examination before trial and to direct respondent to submit to a further examination. The primary purpose of the original motion was, in effect, to obtain a new examination of respondent by reason of the death of the original plaintiff after the termination of the first examination. Order insofai as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinio». Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, 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, alleged to have been caused by respondent’s negligence in operating a motor vehicle so as to strike and injure appellant’s intestate, a pedestrian, the appeal is from so much of an order which granted reargument as, on reargument, adhered to the original determination denying appellant’s motion to overrule objections made to certain questions asked respondent on an examination before trial and to direct respondent to submit to a further examination. The primary purpose of the original motion was, in effect, to obtain a new examination of respondent by reason of the death of the original plaintiff after the termination of the first examination. Order insofai as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinio». Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 863, 201 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-luback-nyappdiv-1960.