Grand Union Co. v. 4944 Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grand Union Co. v. 4944 Restaurant Corp.

20 A.D.2d 633, 247 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 633 (Grand Union Co. v. 4944 Restaurant 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

Grand Union Co. v. 4944 Restaurant Corp., 20 A.D.2d 633, 247 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order [6771], entered on July 12, 1963, vacating the plaintiff’s notice to examine before trial one Stanley Pilate as a witness, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion to vacate fails to sufficiently demonstrate — in the light of the circumstances concerning this witness—that the witness is “without the state” within the contemplation of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act (now OPLR 3101). (See Matter of Buohmm, 270 App. Div. 522.) Order [6772], entered on September 16, 1963, granting reargument of the order vacating the plaintiff’s notice to examine the witness and upon such reargument adhering to the original determination, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. (See memorandum in appeal No. 6771.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Order [6771], entered on July 12, 1963, vacating the plaintiff’s notice to examine before trial one Stanley Pilate as a witness, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion to vacate fails to sufficiently demonstrate — in the light of the circumstances concerning this witness—that the witness is “without the state” within the contemplation of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act (now OPLR 3101). (See Matter of Buohmm, 270 App. Div. 522.) Order [6772], entered on September 16, 1963, granting reargument of the order vacating the plaintiff’s notice to examine the witness and upon such reargument adhering to the original determination, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. (See memorandum in appeal No. 6771.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 633, 247 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-union-co-v-4944-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack