Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co.
250 A.D. 828, 296 N.Y.S. 457, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9174
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 248 A.D. 847 →
Opinion
On reargument, order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (See Chippona v. General Railway Signal Co., 249 App. Div. 255.) All concur. (The order grants plaintiff discovery and inspection of defendant’s plant in an action for personal injuries sustained by contracting silicosis.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ. [See 248 App. Div. 847; 249 id. 921.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co., 250 A.D. 828, 296 N.Y.S. 457, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).
250 A.D. 828 (Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chippona v. General Railway Signal Co.
249 A.D. 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)