From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bentley v. Fritziner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 1983
95 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

June 28, 1983


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O.V. Maresca, J.), entered September 15, 1982 on motion for protective order, is modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent that interrogatories 1, 5, 12, 21, 3 (c), and 4 (b) are stricken, and interrogatories 2, 3 (a) and 4 (a) are limited to the period beginning June 2, 1980, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. The action being at law by a salesman for commissions, plaintiff must be given an opportunity for pretrial disclosure enabling him to prove the amount of commissions owed. Defendants dispute not only whether particular sales were made by plaintiff but also the amounts as "grossly overstated and inaccurate." However, as the commissions claimed relate to sales to eight specified customers, and apparently for the period after June, 1980, interrogatory 1, which is not so limited either as to nature of services, or customers involved, or dates, is improper. Interrogatories 3 (c) and 4 (b) asking defendants to explain why plaintiff is not entitled to commissions with respect to certain sales are adequately covered by the answer, which says that either plaintiff did not make those sales, or in one case, has been fully paid. Interrogatories 5, 12, and 21 have been withdrawn.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Silverman, Bloom and Alexander, JJ.


Summaries of

Bentley v. Fritziner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 28, 1983
95 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Bentley v. Fritziner

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD R. BENTLEY, Respondent, v. GEORGE FRITZINER et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1983

Citations

95 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

McMahon v. Aviette Agency

Of the demands remaining before us, defendants timely objected only to interrogatory number 8, and document…