Segars v. Lasar Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Segars v. Lasar Manufacturing Co.

190 A.D.2d 615, 594 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1656

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 615 (Segars v. Lasar Manufacturing 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

Segars v. Lasar Manufacturing Co., 190 A.D.2d 615, 594 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon completion of disclosure, and directed that disclosure be completed within 90 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not err in granting plaintiff 90 more days in which to conduct disclosure, since facts in defendant’s exclusive possession might show that the meat cutter was sold in the regular course of defendant’s business (see, Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, 174 AD2d 287, lv granted 80 NY2d 757). The 90-day disclosure period does not impose an undue burden on defendant. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment with leave to renew upon completion of disclosure, and directed that disclosure be completed within 90 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not err in granting plaintiff 90 more days in which to conduct disclosure, since facts in defendant’s exclusive possession might show that the meat cutter was sold in the regular course of defendant’s business (see, Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, 174 AD2d 287, lv granted 80 NY2d 757). The 90-day disclosure period does not impose an undue burden on defendant. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 615, 594 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segars-v-lasar-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack