Gutierrez v. Enright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutierrez v. Enright

69 A.D.2d 851, 415 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542

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

DecidedApril 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 851 (Gutierrez v. Enright) 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

Gutierrez v. Enright, 69 A.D.2d 851, 415 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant Ford Motor Company from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 24, 1978, which, inter alia, (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, and upon reargument, (2) vacated its order dated September 20, 1978, which had granted Ford’s motion for a protective order striking plaintiffs’ interrógate[852]*852ries and (3) directed Ford to answer said interrogatories. Order affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements (see Ribley v Harsco Corp., 57 AD2d 228; Goff v Econetics, Inc., 94 Misc 2d 869). We have also considered the appellant’s objections to some specific interrogatories and do not find them unduly burdensome. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant Ford Motor Company from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 24, 1978, which, inter alia, (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, and upon reargument, (2) vacated its order dated September 20, 1978, which had granted Ford’s motion for a protective order striking plaintiffs’ interrógate[852]*852ries and (3) directed Ford to answer said interrogatories. Order affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements (see Ribley v Harsco Corp., 57 AD2d 228; Goff v Econetics, Inc., 94 Misc 2d 869). We have also considered the appellant’s objections to some specific interrogatories and do not find them unduly burdensome. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 851, 415 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-v-enright-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack