Public Administrator v. Odeco, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Administrator v. Odeco, Inc.

88 A.D.2d 543

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

DecidedMay 20, 1982

DocketAppeal No. 13297N

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 543 (Public Administrator v. Odeco, Inc.) 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

Public Administrator v. Odeco, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ostrau, J.), entered June 12, 1981, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for discovery denied, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to a new motion therefore, limited, however, to subjects not having to do with jurisdiction in personam over defendant-appellant. (Appeal No. 13298.) Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Pécora, J.), entered April 8, 1981, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. (Appeal Nos. 13297N-13298.) The order we affirm sustained in personam jurisdiction over defendant-appellant for reasons amply set forth in the opinion of Justice Pécora at Special Term (NYU, April 8, 1981, p 6, col 4). The discovery sought by plaintiff-respondent granted at Special Term, was as to subject matter now rendered academic by our disposition of the appeal from the motion addressed to jurisdiction (Appeal No. [544]*54413298), and we reverse accordingly. That disposition should not stand in the way of discovery sought in any other proper area. Concur — Sullivan, Markewich and Milonas, JJ.; Murphy, P. J., and Carro, J., dissent in part with respect to Appeal No. 13297N in a memorandum by Murphy, P. J., and both dissent in a memorandum by Murphy, P. J., with respect to Appeal No. 13298, the two of which follow:

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ostrau, J.), entered June 12, 1981, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for discovery denied, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to a new motion therefore, limited, however, to subjects not having to do with jurisdiction in personam over defendant-appellant. (Appeal No. 13298.) Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Pécora, J.), entered April 8, 1981, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. (Appeal Nos. 13297N-13298.) The order we affirm sustained in personam jurisdiction over defendant-appellant for reasons amply set forth in the opinion of Justice Pécora at Special Term (NYU, April 8, 1981, p 6, col 4). The discovery sought by plaintiff-respondent granted at Special Term, was as to subject matter now rendered academic by our disposition of the appeal from the motion addressed to jurisdiction (Appeal No. [544]*54413298), and we reverse accordingly. That disposition should not stand in the way of discovery sought in any other proper area. Concur — Sullivan, Markewich and Milonas, JJ.; Murphy, P. J., and Carro, J., dissent in part with respect to Appeal No. 13297N in a memorandum by Murphy, P. J., and both dissent in a memorandum by Murphy, P. J., with respect to Appeal No. 13298, the two of which follow:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-administrator-v-odeco-inc-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack