Cooper v. C.E. Sheppard Company

1 Citing case

  1. Crellin v. Van Duzer

    267 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)   Cited 5 times

    Each defendant made a separate motion to vacate the notice for examination and each of them now appeals from the separate order denying the respective motion of each. There is no issue between the plaintiffs and the defendant Van Duzer as to the matters upon which the plaintiffs seek to examine defendant Van Duzer. Plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to examine the defendant Van Duzer as an adverse party as to those matters ( Burrows v. Magnetic Analysis Corporation, 231 App. Div. 619; Whitelock v. Bergquist, 238 App. Div. 564; Cooper v. Sheppard Co., 247 App. Div. 732; Kozuch v. Bachmann, 244 App. Div. 250). In any event the fourth allegation of the complaints is not necessary or material to plaintiffs' cause of action against the defendant Van Duzer. His motion to vacate the notice of examination should have been granted as to him.