Ricchiuti v. Linter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricchiuti v. Linter

260 A.D. 973, 23 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 973 (Ricchiuti v. Linter) 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

Ricchiuti v. Linter, 260 A.D. 973, 23 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a notice of examination of plaintiffs before trial. The action is brought by two brothers to recover the sum of $8,250, as alleged by plaintiffs to have been lost while gambling on the outcome of horse races. The answer to the complaint is a general denial. The defendant asks to examine the plaintiffs upon the following questions: “ 1. The occupation, place of employment, and weekly salary of each of [974]*974the plaintiffs between November 1, 1937, and June 26, 1938.” “ 2. The place where each of the plaintiffs obtained his respective share of the moneys 1 belonging jointly to the plaintiffs,’ as alleged in paragraph ‘ Third ’ of plaintiffs’ complaint.” Defendant’s general denial makes it unnecessary for him to examine plaintiffs. He can cross-examine them when they are sworn on the trial. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Sehenek, J., taking no part.

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

This is an appeal from an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a notice of examination of plaintiffs before trial. The action is brought by two brothers to recover the sum of $8,250, as alleged by plaintiffs to have been lost while gambling on the outcome of horse races. The answer to the complaint is a general denial. The defendant asks to examine the plaintiffs upon the following questions: “ 1. The occupation, place of employment, and weekly salary of each of [974]*974the plaintiffs between November 1, 1937, and June 26, 1938.” “ 2. The place where each of the plaintiffs obtained his respective share of the moneys 1 belonging jointly to the plaintiffs,’ as alleged in paragraph ‘ Third ’ of plaintiffs’ complaint.” Defendant’s general denial makes it unnecessary for him to examine plaintiffs. He can cross-examine them when they are sworn on the trial. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Sehenek, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 973, 23 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricchiuti-v-linter-nyappdiv-1940.