Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

4 A.D.2d 946, 168 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3819

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 946 (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) 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

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 4 A.D.2d 946, 168 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff’s motion to vacate defendant’s notice to examine plaintiff before trial modified to the extent of reinstating items 9, 11 and 12 of such notice, but eliminating the words, where they appear, “ all relevant facts and circumstances as to ”, “ relating to ”, and “ bearing upon ”, and, otherwise, such order is affirmed, with $20 costs to defendant-appellant; unless plaintiff further stipulates, on submission of the order to be settled herein, that it elects to rest its case exclusively on the right to recover damages on the differential in the wholesale market value, and it concedes therein that should it be determined that its right to damages may embrace an inquiry into the use to which the merchandise was to be put or into the manner and price at which such merchandise was disposed of, then, that it would not have sustained an “actual loss” and would not be entitled to any recovery, in which event, the order is affirmed, without costs. On a motion affecting the right to an examination before trial we do not reach the question of what is or should be the measure of damages, prima facie, or ultimately, but the parties are free to limit their claims and thus simplify the issues in the case, and consequently, on the examination before trial. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Frank and McNally, JJ.

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

Order granting plaintiff’s motion to vacate defendant’s notice to examine plaintiff before trial modified to the extent of reinstating items 9, 11 and 12 of such notice, but eliminating the words, where they appear, “ all relevant facts and circumstances as to ”, “ relating to ”, and “ bearing upon ”, and, otherwise, such order is affirmed, with $20 costs to defendant-appellant; unless plaintiff further stipulates, on submission of the order to be settled herein, that it elects to rest its case exclusively on the right to recover damages on the differential in the wholesale market value, and it concedes therein that should it be determined that its right to damages may embrace an inquiry into the use to which the merchandise was to be put or into the manner and price at which such merchandise was disposed of, then, that it would not have sustained an “actual loss” and would not be entitled to any recovery, in which event, the order is affirmed, without costs. On a motion affecting the right to an examination before trial we do not reach the question of what is or should be the measure of damages, prima facie, or ultimately, but the parties are free to limit their claims and thus simplify the issues in the case, and consequently, on the examination before trial. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Frank and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 946, 168 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nyappdiv-1957.