P. H. C. Inc. v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

P. H. C. Inc. v. Wolf

30 A.D.2d 980, 295 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 980 (P. H. C. Inc. v. Wolf) 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

P. H. C. Inc. v. Wolf, 30 A.D.2d 980, 295 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1968, as denied its motion for a protective order. Order modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by adding item 7 to the first ordering paragraph. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents. The discovery and inspection shall proceed at the place directed in the order under review at a time to be specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days or at such other time and place as may be agreed by the parties. In our opinion, the documents sought to be discovered in item 7 of the notice to produce are not specified with reasonable particularity (CPLR 3120; Haftel v. Appleton, 21 A D 2d 651; Rios v. Donovan, 21 A D 2d 409, 414). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1968, as denied its motion for a protective order. Order modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by adding item 7 to the first ordering paragraph. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents. The discovery and inspection shall proceed at the place directed in the order under review at a time to be specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days or at such other time and place as may be agreed by the parties. In our opinion, the documents sought to be discovered in item 7 of the notice to produce are not specified with reasonable particularity (CPLR 3120; Haftel v. Appleton, 21 A D 2d 651; Rios v. Donovan, 21 A D 2d 409, 414). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 980, 295 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-h-c-inc-v-wolf-nyappdiv-1968.