Amsterdam v. Mandel
This text of 273 A.D. 895 (Amsterdam v. Mandel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In an action to recover brokerage commissions, order denying plaintiff’s motion to examine two witnesses — alleged agents of defendant — before trial, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. The facts disclosed by the affidavit show the existence of special circumstances entitling plaintiff to the examination. (Bloede Co. V. Devine Go., 211 App. Div. 180; Barber v. DeBruin, 253 App. Div. 909; Laruffa v. Astarita, 264 App. Div. 785.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 A.D. 895, 77 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amsterdam-v-mandel-nyappdiv-1948.