
    Frances Templeton, Plaintiff, v. Adar Company, Incorporated, Defendant.
    Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,
    November 18, 1957.
    
      Myles, Wormser £ Koch for plaintiff.
    
      Moses H. Koenig for defendant.
   Irving H. Saypol, J.

This motion to vacate the notice to examine the plaintiff’s assignor (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288) must be granted since the proceeding to examine by notice (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 121-a) extends only to party, agent or employee (Shahmoon v. Shahmoon, N. Y. L. J., April 18, 1956, p. 15, col. 4). This is not indicative of any conclusion on the merits but solely to avoid a moot order (Manley v. Stuart Silver Co., 203 Misc. 218).  