Sabatini v. General Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabatini v. General Electric Co.

74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 898 (Sabatini v. General Electric Co.) 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

Sabatini v. General Electric Co., 74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant Riggs Distler & Co., Inc., from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated February 7, 1979, as denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3108 for the issuance of an open commission to take the deposition for an out-of-State witness. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent General Electric Company. Special Term’s denial of appellant’s cross motion for the issuance of an open commission was not an abuse of discretion. The record indicates that appellant had a full and fair opportunity to depose the witness in question at a prior examination before trial, and that the amended answer and cross claim of General Electric Company injected no new issues into the action which would warrant the granting of the cross motion. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant Riggs Distler & Co., Inc., from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated February 7, 1979, as denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3108 for the issuance of an open commission to take the deposition for an out-of-State witness. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent General Electric Company. Special Term’s denial of appellant’s cross motion for the issuance of an open commission was not an abuse of discretion. The record indicates that appellant had a full and fair opportunity to depose the witness in question at a prior examination before trial, and that the amended answer and cross claim of General Electric Company injected no new issues into the action which would warrant the granting of the cross motion. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 898, 425 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabatini-v-general-electric-co-nyappdiv-1980.