State v. Webster Publishing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Webster Publishing Co.

117 A.D.2d 993, 499 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53234

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.2d 993 (State v. Webster Publishing 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

State v. Webster Publishing Co., 117 A.D.2d 993, 499 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, Callahan, J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondents’ motion to compel discovery (see, People v Bestline Prods., 41 NY2d 887). Moreover, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in ordering the examination in Buffalo, New York, of respondent George Hoskins, president of both corporate respondents and a resident of Canada (CPLR 3110 [1]). The proceeding is pending in Erie County, the locale where respondents transacted the type of business activities complained of by petitioner, and approximately 100 miles from Hoskins’ residence (see, Kahn v Rodman, 91 AD2d 910; Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 AD2d 520). Finally, the materials and information respondents are directed to produce are material and necessary and directly relevant to petitioner’s cause of action that respondents violated General Business Law § 396-m (3) (f). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J.— discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, Callahan, J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondents’ motion to compel discovery (see, People v Bestline Prods., 41 NY2d 887). Moreover, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in ordering the examination in Buffalo, New York, of respondent George Hoskins, president of both corporate respondents and a resident of Canada (CPLR 3110 [1]). The proceeding is pending in Erie County, the locale where respondents transacted the type of business activities complained of by petitioner, and approximately 100 miles from Hoskins’ residence (see, Kahn v Rodman, 91 AD2d 910; Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 AD2d 520). Finally, the materials and information respondents are directed to produce are material and necessary and directly relevant to petitioner’s cause of action that respondents violated General Business Law § 396-m (3) (f). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J.— discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 993, 499 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webster-publishing-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack