Legal Opinion

Sapakas v. Shulsk

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 26, 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtColden, J.

This is a motion by the defendant Joseph Shulsk to vacate, modify or limit the notice of examination before trial, dated May 8, 1943, upon the ground that the items are improper, that the defendant Joseph Shulsk, who is a resident of Kings County, may not under section 300 of the Civil Practice Act be examined in Queens County, and that the production of records is unauthorized except by an order of the court.

The motion is granted in respect to items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and denied as to items 3, 5, 6, 11 omitting the words “ and were so advised ”, 12 and 13.

While it has been held that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. New York City Car Advertising Co. v. E. Regensburg & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  2. Klapp v. MerwinNew York Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Soehner v. Aplo Clothing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harold J. Smith Leather Corp. v. Slater-Boroff, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Popkin v. Original Novelty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Lowsley v. Uretzky, New York County Courts1954
  4. Kennedy v. KennedyNew York Supreme Court · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API