Osborne v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Miller

30 A.D.2d 654, 292 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717

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

DecidedJune 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 654 (Osborne v. Miller) 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

Osborne v. Miller, 30 A.D.2d 654, 292 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered March 13, 1968, appealed from, unanimously modified on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to provide that the continued examination of the named employees of General Motors Corporation shall be by written interrogatories or open commission in Michigan at the option of the examining party. -In the special circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that further examination of the employees be had in Michigan. The parties shall pay their respective expenses which may be taxed as costs by the party prevailing. (Pakter v. Lilly Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Walborsky v. Wolf, 28 A D 2d 1120; B. B. & D. Prods. v. Screen Gems, 29 A D 2d 747.) As so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered March 13, 1968, appealed from, unanimously modified on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to provide that the continued examination of the named employees of General Motors Corporation shall be by written interrogatories or open commission in Michigan at the option of the examining party. -In the special circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that further examination of the employees be had in Michigan. The parties shall pay their respective expenses which may be taxed as costs by the party prevailing. (Pakter v. Lilly Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Walborsky v. Wolf, 28 A D 2d 1120; B. B. & D. Prods. v. Screen Gems, 29 A D 2d 747.) As so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 654, 292 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-miller-nyappdiv-1968.