Larsen v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larsen v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

47 A.D.2d 708, 365 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 708 (Larsen v. Sears Roebuck & Co.) 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

Larsen v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 47 A.D.2d 708, 365 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly denied the motion insofar as plaintiffs sought to discover material prepared by defendant in defense of litigation. Plaintiffs, of course, may examine defendant before ’trial to ascertain what tests defendant performed on the fire extinguisher, whether the extinguisher was altered in any way in, the course thereof, and, if so, in what manner. If it then appears that the condition of the extinguisher at the time plaintiffs delivered it to defendant after the fire cannot be duplicated, plaintiffs may reapply for discovery, in accordance with the determination at Special Term. (Appeal from part of order of Chautauqua Special Term directing defendant to furnish technical information.)" Present. — Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly denied the motion insofar as plaintiffs sought to discover material prepared by defendant in defense of litigation. Plaintiffs, of course, may examine defendant before ’trial to ascertain what tests defendant performed on the fire extinguisher, whether the extinguisher was altered in any way in, the course thereof, and, if so, in what manner. If it then appears that the condition of the extinguisher at the time plaintiffs delivered it to defendant after the fire cannot be duplicated, plaintiffs may reapply for discovery, in accordance with the determination at Special Term. (Appeal from part of order of Chautauqua Special Term directing defendant to furnish technical information.)" Present. — Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 708, 365 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larsen-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1975.