Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, Inc.

19 A.D.2d 711, 242 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 711 (Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, 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

Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 711, 242 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, entered on December 14, 1962 and February 4, 1963, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Resettled order entered on April 25, 1963, denying defendant Schlumberger N. V. (Schlumberger, Limited) time to make motions addressed to the complaint and directing defendants to produce their officers and employees before a Special Referee to give testimony, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of limiting the scope of the examination to whether Schlumberger was the agent of Daystrom for the purpose of service of process, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The resettled order as entered was too broad. Concur —■ Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Orders, entered on December 14, 1962 and February 4, 1963, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Resettled order entered on April 25, 1963, denying defendant Schlumberger N. V. (Schlumberger, Limited) time to make motions addressed to the complaint and directing defendants to produce their officers and employees before a Special Referee to give testimony, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of limiting the scope of the examination to whether Schlumberger was the agent of Daystrom for the purpose of service of process, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The resettled order as entered was too broad. Concur —■ Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 711, 242 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intercontinental-planning-v-daystrom-inc-nyappdiv-1963.