RPM, Inc. v. Pentagon Chemical & Paint Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RPM, Inc. v. Pentagon Chemical & Paint Works, Inc.

114 A.D.2d 1025, 495 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54070

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 1025 (RPM, Inc. v. Pentagon Chemical & Paint Works, Inc.) 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

RPM, Inc. v. Pentagon Chemical & Paint Works, Inc., 114 A.D.2d 1025, 495 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated June 13, 1985, which denied their motion for a protective order and ordered their expert to appear for a deposition.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Because the material examined by defendants’ expert is no longer available for inspection by plaintiffs, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the expert be deposed (see, CPLR 3101 [d]; compare, Fedorcyzk v New York Univ., 95 AD2d 822, with Cepin v Cepin, 66 AD2d 764). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated June 13, 1985, which denied their motion for a protective order and ordered their expert to appear for a deposition.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Because the material examined by defendants’ expert is no longer available for inspection by plaintiffs, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the expert be deposed (see, CPLR 3101 [d]; compare, Fedorcyzk v New York Univ., 95 AD2d 822, with Cepin v Cepin, 66 AD2d 764). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 1025, 495 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rpm-inc-v-pentagon-chemical-paint-works-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack