Wallenstein v. Deak & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wallenstein v. Deak & Co.

15 A.D.2d 466, 222 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7134

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 466 (Wallenstein v. Deak & 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

Wallenstein v. Deak & Co., 15 A.D.2d 466, 222 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on July 21, 1961, granting in part plaintiff’s motion to settle the interrogatories proposed by defendant, in an action to recover on drafts issued in foreign exchange, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs to either party, to allow proposed interrogatories as originally enumerated, 68 to 72, inclusive, such interrogatories to be included in a supplemental commission to be directed, and the order is otherwise affirmed. The proposed interrogatories restored relate to the affirmative defense of lack of authority in the Venezuelan agent of defendant and therefore, regardless of [467]*467the legality of the transaction, constitute pertinent inquiry. On the other hand, the other interrogatories with respect to which the order of Special Term is affirmed are not pertinent to the defenses of illegality or lack of authority contained in defendant’s answer, or are merely cumulative of interrogatories -allowed by Special Term. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered on July 21, 1961, granting in part plaintiff’s motion to settle the interrogatories proposed by defendant, in an action to recover on drafts issued in foreign exchange, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs to either party, to allow proposed interrogatories as originally enumerated, 68 to 72, inclusive, such interrogatories to be included in a supplemental commission to be directed, and the order is otherwise affirmed. The proposed interrogatories restored relate to the affirmative defense of lack of authority in the Venezuelan agent of defendant and therefore, regardless of [467]*467the legality of the transaction, constitute pertinent inquiry. On the other hand, the other interrogatories with respect to which the order of Special Term is affirmed are not pertinent to the defenses of illegality or lack of authority contained in defendant’s answer, or are merely cumulative of interrogatories -allowed by Special Term. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 466, 222 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallenstein-v-deak-co-nyappdiv-1961.