Willig v. Sally Mason, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willig v. Sally Mason, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 1029

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1029 (Willig v. Sally Mason, Inc.) 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

Willig v. Sally Mason, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an alleged employment contract, defendant appeals from that part of an order which denies certain items of an examination of plaintiff before trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. While the court in its discretion may permit the examination of a party before trial, even where the burden of proof is entirely with that party (Public National Bank v. National City Bank, 261 N. Y. 316), the denial by Special Term was proper as defendant failed to show that the matters in question were material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the [1030]*1030action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of an alleged employment contract, defendant appeals from that part of an order which denies certain items of an examination of plaintiff before trial. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. While the court in its discretion may permit the examination of a party before trial, even where the burden of proof is entirely with that party (Public National Bank v. National City Bank, 261 N. Y. 316), the denial by Special Term was proper as defendant failed to show that the matters in question were material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the [1030]*1030action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willig-v-sally-mason-inc-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack