Rosen v. Tanowitz
This text of 272 A.D.2d 775 (Rosen v. Tanowitz) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover commissions alleged to be due under contracts of employment, plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to examine defendant before trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On consideration of plaintiff’s complaint, which consists for the most part of vague and indefinite allegations of fact and conclusions of law, and of his notice of motion and supporting affidavits, which are equally vague and indefinite as to the facts which he desires to establish, we cannot say that'the denial of plaintiff’s motion was an improper exercise of discretion. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
272 A.D.2d 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-tanowitz-nyappdiv-1947.