Yorktown Textile & Trimming Corp. v. London Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yorktown Textile & Trimming Corp. v. London Assurance Co.

12 A.D.2d 910, 210 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 910 (Yorktown Textile & Trimming Corp. v. London Assurance 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

Yorktown Textile & Trimming Corp. v. London Assurance Co., 12 A.D.2d 910, 210 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 31, 1960, denying defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of examination before trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and defendants’ motion to vacate the plaintiffs’ notice of examination of defendants before trial granted, with $10 costs. In this case, where the information and knowledge of defendant companies with respect to matters relevant to the issues depend largely upon their investigation and work product, it was heretofore determined on a prior motion (Special Term, Steuer, J.) and properly so, in our opinion, that a notice of examination of defendants, general in form, embracing all the issues, was not proper or suitable. The court upon the determination of the prior motion gave plaintiff leave to serve “a new notice specifying the particular items on which examination is desired ”. The notice later served and the subject of the order appealed from is general and without proper specification of allowable items for an examination of defendants. Therefore, it should have been vacated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on May 31, 1960, denying defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of examination before trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and defendants’ motion to vacate the plaintiffs’ notice of examination of defendants before trial granted, with $10 costs. In this case, where the information and knowledge of defendant companies with respect to matters relevant to the issues depend largely upon their investigation and work product, it was heretofore determined on a prior motion (Special Term, Steuer, J.) and properly so, in our opinion, that a notice of examination of defendants, general in form, embracing all the issues, was not proper or suitable. The court upon the determination of the prior motion gave plaintiff leave to serve “a new notice specifying the particular items on which examination is desired ”. The notice later served and the subject of the order appealed from is general and without proper specification of allowable items for an examination of defendants. Therefore, it should have been vacated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 910, 210 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yorktown-textile-trimming-corp-v-london-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1961.