Kapp Records, Inc. v. Hyland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapp Records, Inc. v. Hyland

19 A.D.2d 611, 242 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3571

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

DecidedJune 20, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 611 (Kapp Records, Inc. v. Hyland) 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

Kapp Records, Inc. v. Hyland, 19 A.D.2d 611, 242 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 11, 1962, granting, in part, defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant, and plaintiff’s cross motion to examine defendant as a witness, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of denying the motion, granting the cross motion and excising, as improper, the referral of the scope of the examination to Special Term, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant-respondent. In the circumstances an examination of the defendant in his capacity as an adverse party and as a witness should be allowed. No prejudice can result therefrom and the examination sought is proper. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 11, 1962, granting, in part, defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice to examine defendant, and plaintiff’s cross motion to examine defendant as a witness, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of denying the motion, granting the cross motion and excising, as improper, the referral of the scope of the examination to Special Term, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant-respondent. In the circumstances an examination of the defendant in his capacity as an adverse party and as a witness should be allowed. No prejudice can result therefrom and the examination sought is proper. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 611, 242 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapp-records-inc-v-hyland-nyappdiv-1963.