Legal Opinion

Gehm v. Countess Moritza Cosmetic Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1949Published

1Opinion of the CourtCoyne, J.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the use of a deodorant, plaintiff moves to examine the manufacturer of the product before trial upon the following item: “ All the component parts of the preparation manufactured by the defendant Countess Moritza Cosmetic Co., Inc. and known as ‘ Silent Night ’ ”.

In an action of this kind, wherein the secrecy of property rights may be endangered, the party seeking the examination must show that the evidence sought to be elicited cannot otherwise be obtained. Undoubtedly, if the product here involved…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Drake v. HerrmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Kaplan v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API