Intex Co. v. Motorola Semiconductor Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Intex Co. v. Motorola Semiconductor Products, Inc.

114 A.D.2d 1007, 496 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54049

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 1007 (Intex Co. v. Motorola Semiconductor Products, 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

Intex Co. v. Motorola Semiconductor Products, Inc., 114 A.D.2d 1007, 496 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered April 13, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order, pursuant to CPLR 3103, vacating items two and eight of plaintiffs’ notice of discovery and inspection.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The documents in question are not "material and neces[1008]*1008sary” to the prosecution of this action as is required for their production pursuant to demand under CPLR 3120. A demand for such production in conjunction with the deposition of one in possession of such documents pursuant to CPLR 3111 would have been a more appropriate vehicle for evaluating and testing the relevance of each document sought (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 362, at 455-456). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered April 13, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order, pursuant to CPLR 3103, vacating items two and eight of plaintiffs’ notice of discovery and inspection.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The documents in question are not "material and neces[1008]*1008sary” to the prosecution of this action as is required for their production pursuant to demand under CPLR 3120. A demand for such production in conjunction with the deposition of one in possession of such documents pursuant to CPLR 3111 would have been a more appropriate vehicle for evaluating and testing the relevance of each document sought (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 362, at 455-456). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 1007, 496 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intex-co-v-motorola-semiconductor-products-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack