Shah v. Lextaj Corp. N.V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shah v. Lextaj Corp. N.V.

248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3187

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 285 (Shah v. Lextaj Corp. N.V.) 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

Shah v. Lextaj Corp. N.V., 248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 25, 1997, which, in an action for breach of contract by plaintiff concierge service operator against defendant hotel, denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure of documents pertaining to defendant’s relationship with the person who succeeded plaintiff in the operation of the concierge service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied in this breach of employment contract action on the ground that defendant’s relationship with plaintiffs successor is not material and necessary to plaintiffs claim (see, Feeley v Midas Props., 168 AD2d 416).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 25, 1997, which, in an action for breach of contract by plaintiff concierge service operator against defendant hotel, denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure of documents pertaining to defendant’s relationship with the person who succeeded plaintiff in the operation of the concierge service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied in this breach of employment contract action on the ground that defendant’s relationship with plaintiffs successor is not material and necessary to plaintiffs claim (see, Feeley v Midas Props., 168 AD2d 416).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shah-v-lextaj-corp-nv-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack