Liggett v. Comprodaily Publishing Co.

256 A.D. 1005, 10 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order denying defendants’ motion to strike out items 1, 2 and 3 of notice to produce under section 327 of the Civil Practice Act modified by striking out the denial as to items 1 and 2 and granting the motion as to said items; and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs; the documents referred to in item 3 to be produced at the place specified in the order on five days’ notice. It is obvious that appellants have bound themselves to the statement that the original manuscript, clippings, etc., which form the basis of the alleged libelous publications, have been destroyed, and that appellants rely on the newspaper articles stated in the bill of particulars, copies of which newspapers concededly have been given to plaintiff’s counsel. Appellants are required to make a more thorough effort to comply with item 3 of the notice, and if unable to comply therewith in whole or in part they should so certify under oath. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Liggett v. Comprodaily Publishing Co., 256 A.D. 1005, 10 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

256 A.D. 1005 (Liggett v. Comprodaily Publishing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scher v. Pollack
10 Misc. 2d 856 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)