R. F. Conway Co. v. Cumisky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R. F. Conway Co. v. Cumisky

173 A.D. 928, 158 N.Y.S. 334

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

DecidedApril 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D. 928 (R. F. Conway Co. v. Cumisky) 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

R. F. Conway Co. v. Cumisky, 173 A.D. 928, 158 N.Y.S. 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The examination required is not for the purpose of obtaining testimony to support the plaintiff’s case, but to examine into [929]*929the defendant’s affirmative counterclaim. The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate order for examination granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The examination required is not for the purpose of obtaining testimony to support the plaintiff’s case, but to examine into [929]*929the defendant’s affirmative counterclaim. The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate order for examination granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D. 928, 158 N.Y.S. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-f-conway-co-v-cumisky-nyappdiv-1916.