State v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.

67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10760

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 971 (State v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.) 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

State v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc., 67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

— In an action to recover penalties for alleged violations of the Agriculture and Markets Law, the State of New York appeals (by permission) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 27, 1977, as granted defendant’s motion to strike the fifth paragraph of the complaint, and the exhibits thereto, as "prejudicial matter unnecessarily included”. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an improper exercise of discretion for Special Term to have granted defendant’s motion to strike that paragraph of plaintiffs complaint which contained evidentiary matter prejudicial to the defendant. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover penalties for alleged violations of the Agriculture and Markets Law, the State of New York appeals (by permission) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 27, 1977, as granted defendant’s motion to strike the fifth paragraph of the complaint, and the exhibits thereto, as "prejudicial matter unnecessarily included”. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an improper exercise of discretion for Special Term to have granted defendant’s motion to strike that paragraph of plaintiffs complaint which contained evidentiary matter prejudicial to the defendant. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dairylea-cooperative-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack