From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplan v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1948
273 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

February 16, 1948.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the application of appellants' hair dye, order directing examination before trial further modified by granting the motion to strike out item 2 of the notice of examination before trial, and by changing the language of item 1 to read as follows: "As to whether or not a product described in the complaint as Roux Hair Dye was manufactured by appellants and distributed by them to the defendant Jeanie Terranova." As thus modified the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs, the examination to proceed on five days' notice. The plaintiff has made no showing of necessity for an examination that may reveal trade secrets, nor that the information cannot be obtained otherwise. ( Drake v. Herrman, 261 N.Y. 414.) Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kaplan v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1948
273 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Kaplan v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CLARA KAPLAN, Respondent, v. ROUX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: Feb 16, 1948

Citations

273 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

Interstate Cigar Co. v. I.B.I. Security Service, Inc.

In passing, the court notes that even if these sources were found to be true "trade secrets", plaintiff would…

GEHM v. COUNTESS MORITZA COSMETIC CO

The moving papers do not disclose the necessity for the examination, or that the information sought cannot be…