Vitole v. Haase

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vitole v. Haase

21 A.D.2d 805, 252 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584

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

DecidedJune 10, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 805 (Vitole v. Haase) 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

Vitole v. Haase, 21 A.D.2d 805, 252 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a stockholder's derivative action, the defendants Haase, Stern and Presto Manufacturing Co., Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 9, 1964 upon reargument: (1) as granted plaintiff’s motion for a discovery and inspection, for a pretrial examination of said defendants, and for modification of said defendants’ notice for the pretrial examination of the plaintiff; and (2) as denied their cross motion, pursuant to statute (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], pars. 1, 7), to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. The initial examination of the plain[806]*806tiff as directed by the order shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such time as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. The other examinations and the discovery shall thereafter proceed as prescribed in the order. TJghetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a stockholder's derivative action, the defendants Haase, Stern and Presto Manufacturing Co., Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 9, 1964 upon reargument: (1) as granted plaintiff’s motion for a discovery and inspection, for a pretrial examination of said defendants, and for modification of said defendants’ notice for the pretrial examination of the plaintiff; and (2) as denied their cross motion, pursuant to statute (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], pars. 1, 7), to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. The initial examination of the plain[806]*806tiff as directed by the order shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice or at such time as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. The other examinations and the discovery shall thereafter proceed as prescribed in the order. TJghetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 805, 252 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vitole-v-haase-nyappdiv-1964.