Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Allen
25 A.D.2d 742, 269 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4420
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1966·Published·Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
Order entered February 24, 1966, granting examination of respondents in order to frame a complaint, unanimously reversed, [743] on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondents-appellants, the motion denied and the application dismissed. In order to obtain an examination to frame a complaint, plaintiff; should present facts fairly-indicating a cause of action against the adverse party. (Cotler v. Retail Credit Co., 18 A D 2d 898.) There is no such showing here.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Allen, 25 A.D.2d 742, 269 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).
25 A.D.2d 742 (Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tarter v. State
113 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Goldstein v. News York Daily News
106 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
In re the Estate of Shubert
110 Misc. 2d 635 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1981)
Holly v. Holly
78 A.D.2d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Banco de Concepcion v. Manfra, Tordella & Brooke, Inc.
70 A.D.2d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
State v. Braunstein
66 A.D.2d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
In re Simpson
63 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Newell v. Makhuli
50 A.D.2d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)