Wax v. Sacks

280 A.D. 900, 115 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4097
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 1952·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In an action for slander, plaintiffs appeal from an order directing the examination, by defendants, of a witness. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate the notice of examination granted, with $10 costs. Respondents failed to show special circumstances warranting the examination of the person sought to be examined (Civ. Prae. Act, § 288). He is not a party or the agent or employee of a party to the action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 121-a). Respondents deny they ever made to him any of the alleged scandalous statements which the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing. The examination is not sought to establish the truth of the alleged statements. (Cf. Sommers v. New Torh World-Telegram Corp., 279 App. Div. 937.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Wax v. Sacks, 280 A.D. 900, 115 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

280 A.D. 900 (Wax v. Sacks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milner v. Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co.
10 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Valentine Dolls, Inc. v. McMillan
25 Misc. 2d 551 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Kagan v. Gair
14 Misc. 2d 538 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Lipin v. Salkin
11 Misc. 2d 877 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Munsie v. Highland Hospital
8 Misc. 2d 487 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Augenblick v. Augenblick
203 Misc. 360 (New York Supreme Court, 1952)