Rousseau v. Robb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rousseau v. Robb

175 A.D. 949

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D. 949 (Rousseau v. Robb) 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

Rousseau v. Robb, 175 A.D. 949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. It is probable that the Special Term, exercising its discretion, was not satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit of defendants’ attorney that the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by the granting of the motion. The deponent failed to specify the witnesses whom he had interviewed and to state the materiality of their evidence as a matter of personal knowledge. (See Pattison v. Hines, 105 App. Div. 282.) Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., not voting.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. It is probable that the Special Term, exercising its discretion, was not satisfied with the sufficiency of the affidavit of defendants’ attorney that the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by the granting of the motion. The deponent failed to specify the witnesses whom he had interviewed and to state the materiality of their evidence as a matter of personal knowledge. (See Pattison v. Hines, 105 App. Div. 282.) Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D. 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rousseau-v-robb-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack