Neuwirth v. Wyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neuwirth v. Wyman

282 A.D. 1044, 126 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5766

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1044 (Neuwirth v. Wyman) 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

Neuwirth v. Wyman, 282 A.D. 1044, 126 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying the motion ©f plaintiff Neuwirth and intervener Salmon to vacate or modify the notice of examination unanimously affirmed. The order denying a similar motion made by the other intervener plaintiffs is unanimously affirmed only as to those intervener plaintiffs who are residents of the city of New York and otherwise modified as follows: The intervener plaintiffs residing outside the city may be examined at their respective places of residence upon written interrogatories, as provided in section 302 of the Civil Practice Act and the Rules of Civil Practice applicable to such examinations. At the option of the defendants-respondents, upon payment by them of traveling and other expenses involved, any of said intervener plaintiffs may be examined in the borough of Manhattan as provided in the order appealed from. Lastly, if defendants-respondents so elect, the testimony of any intervener plaintiffs may be taken at their place of residence upon open commission. In such event the necessary disbursements of the attorneys for both sides in attending upon the examination shall be paid by the defendants-respondents. Settle order on notice. Present — Callahan, J. Pv Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 708.]

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

Order denying the motion ©f plaintiff Neuwirth and intervener Salmon to vacate or modify the notice of examination unanimously affirmed. The order denying a similar motion made by the other intervener plaintiffs is unanimously affirmed only as to those intervener plaintiffs who are residents of the city of New York and otherwise modified as follows: The intervener plaintiffs residing outside the city may be examined at their respective places of residence upon written interrogatories, as provided in section 302 of the Civil Practice Act and the Rules of Civil Practice applicable to such examinations. At the option of the defendants-respondents, upon payment by them of traveling and other expenses involved, any of said intervener plaintiffs may be examined in the borough of Manhattan as provided in the order appealed from. Lastly, if defendants-respondents so elect, the testimony of any intervener plaintiffs may be taken at their place of residence upon open commission. In such event the necessary disbursements of the attorneys for both sides in attending upon the examination shall be paid by the defendants-respondents. Settle order on notice. Present — Callahan, J. Pv Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 708.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1044, 126 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neuwirth-v-wyman-nyappdiv-1953.