Schlussel v. Kanaley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlussel v. Kanaley

259 A.D. 831, 19 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888

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

DecidedApril 8, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 831 (Schlussel v. Kanaley) 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

Schlussel v. Kanaley, 259 A.D. 831, 19 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellant’s motion to examine the infant plaintiff before trial with respect to the issues alleged in the counterclaim, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, "without costs, the examination to proceed at Special Term, Part II, Supreme Court, Kings County, on five days’ notice. The appellant was not present at the scene of the collision, and the plaintiffs’ bill of particulars seems to indicate that the contact between the automobile and the bicycle was at a point on the right side of the automobile. Under the circumstances, the court is of the opinion that sufficient has been shown to entitle appellant to an examination on the matters alleged in her counterclaim. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying appellant’s motion to examine the infant plaintiff before trial with respect to the issues alleged in the counterclaim, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, "without costs, the examination to proceed at Special Term, Part II, Supreme Court, Kings County, on five days’ notice. The appellant was not present at the scene of the collision, and the plaintiffs’ bill of particulars seems to indicate that the contact between the automobile and the bicycle was at a point on the right side of the automobile. Under the circumstances, the court is of the opinion that sufficient has been shown to entitle appellant to an examination on the matters alleged in her counterclaim. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 831, 19 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlussel-v-kanaley-nyappdiv-1940.