Pearlman v. Monahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pearlman v. Monahan

256 A.D. 985, 11 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 985 (Pearlman v. Monahan) 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

Pearlman v. Monahan, 256 A.D. 985, 11 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for death by wrongful act as a consequence of plaintiff’s decedent being struck by the automobile operated by the defendant. Order modified by striking out the denial as to certain items contained in the notice of motion and the motion granted as to all items and matters contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion dated November 29, 1938, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant; examination to proceed on five days’ notice. In so far as the Special Term denied plaintiff’s motion, that action was improvident. The facts entitled the plaintiff to the fullest opportunity to examine the defendant. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Action for death by wrongful act as a consequence of plaintiff’s decedent being struck by the automobile operated by the defendant. Order modified by striking out the denial as to certain items contained in the notice of motion and the motion granted as to all items and matters contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion dated November 29, 1938, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant; examination to proceed on five days’ notice. In so far as the Special Term denied plaintiff’s motion, that action was improvident. The facts entitled the plaintiff to the fullest opportunity to examine the defendant. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 985, 11 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearlman-v-monahan-nyappdiv-1939.