From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aquamarine Compania v. London Overseas Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 20, 1960
11 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Opinion

September 20, 1960


Order dated June 9, 1960, directing examination of defendants before trial and for discovery and inspection of said defendants' books, records and papers, unanimously modified, without costs, on the facts and the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of further limiting the examinations before trial and the discovery to such books, records, papers or other documents which are not the work products of investigators, experts, counsel or other agents and employees of defendants functioning in similar capacities, and said order as so modified is otherwise affirmed. The appeals taken from the order dated June 21, 1960, denying defendants' motion for an order resettling the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated June 9, 1960, and from the order dated March 3, 1960, directing settlement of an order, are unanimously dismissed, as academic, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Settle order on notice. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision herein.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Aquamarine Compania v. London Overseas Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 20, 1960
11 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)
Case details for

Aquamarine Compania v. London Overseas Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:AQUAMARINE COMPANIA NAVIERA, S.A., PANAMA, Respondent, v. LONDON OVERSEAS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 20, 1960

Citations

11 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Lachowitz v. Child's Hospital

At first blush, and of a disturbing nature, is the thought that the discovery and inspection now sought…

Gugliano v. Levi

Redevelopment Auth., 341 Mass. 377, 379). It permitted plaintiff indirectly to contravene the interdictions…