Groff v. Daily Review Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Groff v. Daily Review Corp.

248 A.D. 773

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

DecidedJune 15, 1936

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 773 (Groff v. Daily Review 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

Groff v. Daily Review Corp., 248 A.D. 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying, in an action for libel, plaintiff’s motion for an examination of the defendant with respect to matters alleged in the complaint and denied by the defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. The nature of the [774]*774action does not justify denial of the motion. The subject-matter of the examination is proper in view of defendant’s denials. The introduction of each item with the word “ Whether ” is not objectionable. Although some of the items are not in good form, this court will not correct the form or substance of questions that were not made the subject of objection. The examination is to proceed on five days’ notice at a time and place to be fixed in the order. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Order denying, in an action for libel, plaintiff’s motion for an examination of the defendant with respect to matters alleged in the complaint and denied by the defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. The nature of the [774]*774action does not justify denial of the motion. The subject-matter of the examination is proper in view of defendant’s denials. The introduction of each item with the word “ Whether ” is not objectionable. Although some of the items are not in good form, this court will not correct the form or substance of questions that were not made the subject of objection. The examination is to proceed on five days’ notice at a time and place to be fixed in the order. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groff-v-daily-review-corp-nyappdiv-1936.