Gabby's Army Navy, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gabby's Army Navy, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

114 A.D.2d 882, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53909

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 882 (Gabby's Army Navy, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.) 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

Gabby's Army Navy, Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc., 114 A.D.2d 882, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of protection with respect to certain items demanded in defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, and plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is denied in its entirety.

Under the circumstances of this case, all of the Items [883]*883demanded by defendant were properly discoverable. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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 breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of protection with respect to certain items demanded in defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, and plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is denied in its entirety.

Under the circumstances of this case, all of the Items [883]*883demanded by defendant were properly discoverable. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 882, 495 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabbys-army-navy-inc-v-afa-protective-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1985.