In re Central Offices, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Central Offices, Inc.

263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4967

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 794 (In re Central Offices, 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

In re Central Offices, Inc., 263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

[795]*795Order reversed on the law and facts as a matter of discretion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate the notice granted, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The matters upon which examination of petitioner is sought are in the main either not material and necessary, or are not shown to be within the knowledge of petitioner’s agents, or may be obtained by means of a bill of particulars. Proof of value will depend largely on the testimony of expert witnesses. The effect of such an examination as respondent seeks would be to cause-unnecessary expense and to delay unduly the trial upon which respondent will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner’s witnesses. All concur. (The order denies petitioner’s motion to vacate or modify notice to take testimony before trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

[795]*795Order reversed on the law and facts as a matter of discretion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate the notice granted, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The matters upon which examination of petitioner is sought are in the main either not material and necessary, or are not shown to be within the knowledge of petitioner’s agents, or may be obtained by means of a bill of particulars. Proof of value will depend largely on the testimony of expert witnesses. The effect of such an examination as respondent seeks would be to cause-unnecessary expense and to delay unduly the trial upon which respondent will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner’s witnesses. All concur. (The order denies petitioner’s motion to vacate or modify notice to take testimony before trial.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-central-offices-inc-nyappdiv-1941.