Sutton v. Jemal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton v. Jemal

272 A.D.2d 925

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

DecidedJune 16, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 925 (Sutton v. Jemal) 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

Sutton v. Jemal, 272 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant, order granting motion by plaintiff to vacate notice of examination before trial modified on the law and the facts by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “ in all respects ” and “ it is further ” and inserting after the word “granted” in said paragraph the words and figures, “as to items 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18, and in all other respects denied”; and by striking out the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the denial of the examination in its entirety was an improvident exercise of discretion. (Cf. Gramatan Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sagamore Apts., Ine., 241 App. Div. 840.) Examination was properly refused, however, as to items 2, 3 and 4, which are repetitious, and as to items 17 and 18, which are unnecessary. The exami[926]*926nation shall proceed on five' days’ notice. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Cars-well, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant, order granting motion by plaintiff to vacate notice of examination before trial modified on the law and the facts by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “ in all respects ” and “ it is further ” and inserting after the word “granted” in said paragraph the words and figures, “as to items 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18, and in all other respects denied”; and by striking out the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the denial of the examination in its entirety was an improvident exercise of discretion. (Cf. Gramatan Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sagamore Apts., Ine., 241 App. Div. 840.) Examination was properly refused, however, as to items 2, 3 and 4, which are repetitious, and as to items 17 and 18, which are unnecessary. The exami[926]*926nation shall proceed on five' days’ notice. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Cars-well, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-jemal-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack