Resnik v. Dyson-Kissner Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Resnik v. Dyson-Kissner Corp.

25 A.D.2d 728, 268 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508

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

DecidedApril 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 728 (Resnik v. Dyson-Kissner Corp.) 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

Resnik v. Dyson-Kissner Corp., 25 A.D.2d 728, 268 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 20, 1965, denying petitioner’s application for an order for disclosure in order to frame a complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of permitting petitioner to discover and inspect the letter of the petitioner, receipt of which was acknowledged by respondent by letter dated August 15, 1960, and, as so modified, affirmed, without eosts or disbursements. The letter aEegedly set forth in detail certain facts upon which petitioner bases his claim against respondent. Petitioner has misplaced his copy and respondent does not deny possession of the original. (See Matter of Roland [Deak], 10 A D 2d 263.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order entered October 20, 1965, denying petitioner’s application for an order for disclosure in order to frame a complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of permitting petitioner to discover and inspect the letter of the petitioner, receipt of which was acknowledged by respondent by letter dated August 15, 1960, and, as so modified, affirmed, without eosts or disbursements. The letter aEegedly set forth in detail certain facts upon which petitioner bases his claim against respondent. Petitioner has misplaced his copy and respondent does not deny possession of the original. (See Matter of Roland [Deak], 10 A D 2d 263.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 728, 268 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resnik-v-dyson-kissner-corp-nyappdiv-1966.