From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fairchild Camera and Instrument v. Barletta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1964
21 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

June 16, 1964


Order, entered on March 16, 1964, granting defendants' motion for a protective order and vacating plaintiff's notice of examination before trial of defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants are directed to submit to an oral examination by plaintiff in New York City within six months from the date of the order to be entered hereon. Defendants shall serve upon plaintiff five days' notice of the date and time of their availability for examination at the place therefor designated in said order. The expenses are to be borne initially by defendants and to be taxable as costs in the event defendants prevail in the action. Defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing hardship. ( United Refrigerator Co. v. Rose, 19 A.D.2d 809; Schoen v. Morgan Trucking Co., 13 A.D.2d 622.) Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P.J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.


Summaries of

Fairchild Camera and Instrument v. Barletta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1964
21 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Fairchild Camera and Instrument v. Barletta

Case Details

Full title:FAIRCHILD CAMERA AND INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. AMADEO H…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1964

Citations

21 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Ingold v. Unique Design Home Builders, Inc.

A court may vary this general approach and require one party to defray another's expenses (see e.g. Buffone v…