Giordano v. A&M Tool & Die Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giordano v. A&M Tool & Die Co.

104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20463

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 1027 (Giordano v. A&M Tool & Die Co.) 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

Giordano v. A&M Tool & Die Co., 104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence, products liability and breach of warranty action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated March 30, 1983, as, upon partially granting the motion by defendants Abex Corporation (and/or Abex Corporation, Denison Division) and Abex Denison Multipress to strike certain items from plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection, struck item 12 and limited the scope of items 2 and 3.

Order modified, by deleting the words “Items 2, 3, and 5 are” from the fourth paragraph thereof and substituting therefore the words “Item 5 is” and by adding after the fourth paragraph the following: “Items 2 and 3 are limited to a period of three years prior to the happening of this accident and to claims similar in nature to the one alleged, involving the same type of machine or involving the identical components in the Multipress line of machines manufactured by defendants Abex Corporation (and/or Abex Corporation, Denison Division) and Abex Denison Multipress”. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. (See Johantgen v Hobart Mfg. Co., 64 AD2d 858, 859; Ribley v Harsco Corp., 84 Misc 2d 744, affd 57 AD2d 228; Petty v Riverbay Corp., 92 AD2d 525; Matos v City of New York, 78 AD2d 834.) Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence, products liability and breach of warranty action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated March 30, 1983, as, upon partially granting the motion by defendants Abex Corporation (and/or Abex Corporation, Denison Division) and Abex Denison Multipress to strike certain items from plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection, struck item 12 and limited the scope of items 2 and 3.

Order modified, by deleting the words “Items 2, 3, and 5 are” from the fourth paragraph thereof and substituting therefore the words “Item 5 is” and by adding after the fourth paragraph the following: “Items 2 and 3 are limited to a period of three years prior to the happening of this accident and to claims similar in nature to the one alleged, involving the same type of machine or involving the identical components in the Multipress line of machines manufactured by defendants Abex Corporation (and/or Abex Corporation, Denison Division) and Abex Denison Multipress”. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. (See Johantgen v Hobart Mfg. Co., 64 AD2d 858, 859; Ribley v Harsco Corp., 84 Misc 2d 744, affd 57 AD2d 228; Petty v Riverbay Corp., 92 AD2d 525; Matos v City of New York, 78 AD2d 834.) Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giordano-v-am-tool-die-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack