Marshall Air Products Co. v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall Air Products Co. v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 518, 276 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 518 (Marshall Air Products Co. v. Reynolds Fasteners, 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

Marshall Air Products Co. v. Reynolds Fasteners, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 518, 276 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 6, 1966, denying defendant’s motion to examine Consolidated Tube Corporation as a witness before trial, unanimously reversed, on the facts and the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted. Defendant was, to a considerable degree, thwarted in its efforts to obtain information as to the goods which are the subject matter of the action on an examination of plaintiff. This was due to a lack of records and plaintiff’s professed inability to give the information sought. The goods were bought by plaintiff from the proposed witness. It was further shown that this latter corporation was owned and controlled by members of the same family who own and control plaintiff corporation, with overlapping officerships. . These circumstances dispense with the necessity of showing that the proposed witness was hostile. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 6, 1966, denying defendant’s motion to examine Consolidated Tube Corporation as a witness before trial, unanimously reversed, on the facts and the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted. Defendant was, to a considerable degree, thwarted in its efforts to obtain information as to the goods which are the subject matter of the action on an examination of plaintiff. This was due to a lack of records and plaintiff’s professed inability to give the information sought. The goods were bought by plaintiff from the proposed witness. It was further shown that this latter corporation was owned and controlled by members of the same family who own and control plaintiff corporation, with overlapping officerships. . These circumstances dispense with the necessity of showing that the proposed witness was hostile. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 518, 276 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-air-products-co-v-reynolds-fasteners-inc-nyappdiv-1966.