Impala Electronics, Inc. v. Riker Video Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Impala Electronics, Inc. v. Riker Video Industries, Inc.

33 A.D.2d 685, 306 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2911

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 685 (Impala Electronics, Inc. v. Riker Video Industries, Inc.) 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

Impala Electronics, Inc. v. Riker Video Industries, Inc., 33 A.D.2d 685, 306 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 6, 1969, modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out so much thereof as, on respondent’s motion for a protective order, disallowed item 2 of plaintiff’s notice to examine respondent before trial, and by substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to said item. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, item 2 is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action. We agree [686]*686with the Special Term’s determination in all other respects. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 6, 1969, modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out so much thereof as, on respondent’s motion for a protective order, disallowed item 2 of plaintiff’s notice to examine respondent before trial, and by substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to said item. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, item 2 is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action. We agree [686]*686with the Special Term’s determination in all other respects. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 685, 306 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/impala-electronics-inc-v-riker-video-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1969.