De Santis v. Indep. Beetle Serv., Inc., 59 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
De Santis v. Indep. Beetle Serv., Inc., 59 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc. (nyappdiv, 1978-03-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, we are not concerned with a question whether such an agreement was enforceable against appellant (see Geraci v Jenrette, 41 NY2d 660 , 666, supra; see, also, Church of God of Prospect Plaza v Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, of Brooklyn, 59 AD2d 732 ; see, also, General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 2).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael De Santis
v.
Independent Beetle Service, Inc., and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Snap On Tools Corporation, Third-Party and Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent Fairmont Tool and Forging Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc., Fourth-Party , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 17, 1977.
59 A.D.2d 732
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, predicated upon theories of negligence and breach of warranties, the fourth-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 16, 1977, as, upon plaintiff’s motion, directed (1) a further examination of William Hoffman, president of the appellant corporation, and (2) discovery of appellant’s report of its inspection of the hammer which allegedly caused the injury. Appeal from so much of the order as relates to the further examination of the president of the appellant corporation dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. The further[*733] examination has already been held. Order otherwise reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery of the report is denied, without prejudice to renewal. All that plaintiff in his brief contends is that the hammer was altered as a result of tests conducted by other parties to this action (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]). The record contains no such claim. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.