Jacoby v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacoby v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53852

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 840 (Jacoby v. Syntex Laboratories, 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

Jacoby v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), dated May 17, 1984, as, in effect, upon granting defendant’s motion for reargument, denied so much of plaintiffs motion as sought to direct defendant to further answer plaintiffs interrogatory No. 26.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances herein, we agree with Special Term’s finding that the defendant has sufficiently responded to plaintiffs interrogatory No. 26, which sought information regarding other lawsuits filed against the defendant involving alleged adverse reactions to Neo-Mull-Soy, a baby formula manufactured and sold by defendant. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), dated May 17, 1984, as, in effect, upon granting defendant’s motion for reargument, denied so much of plaintiffs motion as sought to direct defendant to further answer plaintiffs interrogatory No. 26.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances herein, we agree with Special Term’s finding that the defendant has sufficiently responded to plaintiffs interrogatory No. 26, which sought information regarding other lawsuits filed against the defendant involving alleged adverse reactions to Neo-Mull-Soy, a baby formula manufactured and sold by defendant. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacoby-v-syntex-laboratories-inc-nyappdiv-1985.