Legal Opinion

Cohen v. Mann

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1922PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion to vacate a notice to take testimony under section 290 of the Civil Practice Act.

1Opinion of the CourtNichols, J.

The venue of this action is laid in New York county and the defendant has answered. No motion has been made to change the place of trial.'

*265Plaintiff’s attorneys gave notice to the defendant’s attorney of the taking of testimony of the defendant before a referee in the county of Albany, in which county the defendant resides.

The defendant makes this motion to vacate the notice for the examination, at the Albany Special Term.

The plaintiff objects to the motion being heard at the Albany Special Term under rule 63 of the Rules of Civil Practice which provides:

“ 1. A motion on notice in an action in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In re HanburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  2. In re BackusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  3. Matter of BackusNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  4. Delahunty v. CanfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Goldberg v. Candy Products Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API