Tillman v. Lincoln Warehouse Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tillman v. Lincoln Warehouse Corp.

45 A.D.2d 947, 359 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 947 (Tillman v. Lincoln Warehouse Corp.) 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

Tillman v. Lincoln Warehouse Corp., 45 A.D.2d 947, 359 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 5, 1972, insofar as appealed from, denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories and granting defendant’s cross motion for a protective order as to certain interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion granted. A reading of the complaint reveals that despite the characterization of defendant’s conduct this is an action for the breach of a contract of bailment. As such the use of interrogatories is unexceptionable. Concededly defendant did not move for a protective order within 10 days as prescribed by CPLR 3133. Special Term’s ruling was made on the ground that the stricken interrogatories were palpably improper. We do not so find them. Settle order on notice. Concur — Markewieh, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Steuer

and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 5, 1972, insofar as appealed from, denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories and granting defendant’s cross motion for a protective order as to certain interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion granted. A reading of the complaint reveals that despite the characterization of defendant’s conduct this is an action for the breach of a contract of bailment. As such the use of interrogatories is unexceptionable. Concededly defendant did not move for a protective order within 10 days as prescribed by CPLR 3133. Special Term’s ruling was made on the ground that the stricken interrogatories were palpably improper. We do not so find them. Settle order on notice. Concur — Markewieh, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Steuer

and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 947, 359 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-lincoln-warehouse-corp-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack