Merrick v. Four Star Stage Lighting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrick v. Four Star Stage Lighting, Inc.

57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12011

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

DecidedMay 26, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 819 (Merrick v. Four Star Stage Lighting, 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

Merrick v. Four Star Stage Lighting, Inc., 57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 23, 1977, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order striking portions of notice seeking production of documents at examination before trial, and denying plaintiffs cross motion for sanctions, is unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The stipulation made on the record at the examination before trial refutes any claim of waiver of the right to object to the notice for production of documents. The Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to the extent that it did and in denying plaintiffs cross motion. While the description of the portions stricken as “documents not relevant to this action” is obviously unspecific, it is taken care of as a practical matter in this case by the authority of the court, expressly restated by the Special Term, "to supervise all phases of pre-trial disclosure.” Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 23, 1977, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order striking portions of notice seeking production of documents at examination before trial, and denying plaintiffs cross motion for sanctions, is unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The stipulation made on the record at the examination before trial refutes any claim of waiver of the right to object to the notice for production of documents. The Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to the extent that it did and in denying plaintiffs cross motion. While the description of the portions stricken as “documents not relevant to this action” is obviously unspecific, it is taken care of as a practical matter in this case by the authority of the court, expressly restated by the Special Term, "to supervise all phases of pre-trial disclosure.” Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrick-v-four-star-stage-lighting-inc-nyappdiv-1977.