New Rochelle Precision Grinding Corp. v. Marino

9 A.D.2d 685, 191 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6730
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 13, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 9 A.D.2d 685 (New Rochelle Precision Grinding Corp. v. Marino) 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
New Rochelle Precision Grinding Corp. v. Marino, 9 A.D.2d 685, 191 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s motion to take the deposition of appellants, as adverse parties, to obtain information to enable respondent to draw a complaint and for other relief (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 122). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The complaint is to be served, if respondent be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. The facts stated in support of the motion do not fairly indicate that respondent has any cause of action against either appellant, and an examination may not be allowed to ascertain whether such facts exist. (Beihirch v. Loebs, 243 App. Div. 859; East V. Endicott Forging <& Mfg. Co., 280 App. Div. 651; Stewart V. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582.) Moreover, if it be assumed, as respondent contends, that the facts stated are sufficient as against the individual appellant, it would also appear that respondent possesses sufficient information to frame a complaint without the examination which is sought. (Beihirch [686]*686v. Loebs, supra) JRosenhranz v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 260 App. Div. 1057.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hoffman v. Batridge
155 Misc. 2d 862 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
In re Isseks
144 Misc. 2d 322 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Tarter v. State
113 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Goldstein v. News York Daily News
106 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Banco de Concepcion v. Manfra, Tordella & Brooke, Inc.
70 A.D.2d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Simpson
63 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
L-Tron Corp. v. Davco Systems, Inc.
60 A.D.2d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
In re the City of Buffalo
52 A.D.2d 1061 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.2d 685, 191 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-rochelle-precision-grinding-corp-v-marino-nyappdiv-1959.