Xtra Dividend, Inc. v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Xtra Dividend, Inc. v. Lawrence

65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 519 (Xtra Dividend, Inc. v. Lawrence) 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

Xtra Dividend, Inc. v. Lawrence, 65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 18, 1977, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (subd [a]) and 3133 to vacate plaintiffs’ request for interrogatories dated February 17, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of granting the motion as to Item No. 11 of the interrogatories and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. In light of the principle mandating disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, it appears that Item No. 11 of plaintiffs’ interrogatories is overly broad. Further, it is noted that defendants on appeal concede that they are experienced and knowledgeable realtors, thus vitiating plaintiffs’ contention that the information sought by Item No. 11 is necessary to establish the expertise of defendants in the real estate business. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Yesawich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 18, 1977, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (subd [a]) and 3133 to vacate plaintiffs’ request for interrogatories dated February 17, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of granting the motion as to Item No. 11 of the interrogatories and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. In light of the principle mandating disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, it appears that Item No. 11 of plaintiffs’ interrogatories is overly broad. Further, it is noted that defendants on appeal concede that they are experienced and knowledgeable realtors, thus vitiating plaintiffs’ contention that the information sought by Item No. 11 is necessary to establish the expertise of defendants in the real estate business. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Yesawich and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 519, 409 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xtra-dividend-inc-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1978.