Ayew v. Willard Hawes & Co.

258 A.D. 579, 17 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 8, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 579 (Ayew v. Willard Hawes & Co.) 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.

Bluebook
Ayew v. Willard Hawes & Co., 258 A.D. 579, 17 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Peb Curiam.

The obstructive tactics that have characterized this examination might well justify granting the relief denied in the order appealed from. We feel disposed, however, to accept for the present the assurance of counsel given on the argument of this appeal that the examination would be conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner. To insure this the examination is referred to Hon. Richard P. Lydon, official referee.

The motion to punish for contempt and to strike out the defendants’ answers may be renewed in case of further obstructions of the examination. Should the production of books under the present order fail to adequately inform plaintiff of the details of the transactions involved, an application for an inspection and discovery may be made.

We see no reason why the examination of the other defendants should await the completion of the examination of the defendant Hill. This should also be supervised by the same official referee.

The order denying the motion to punish for contempt should be modified as herein indicated, and, as so modified, affirmed, and the order denying the motion for an examination before trial should be reversed so far as appealed from and the motion granted as indicated herein, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendants-respondents,

[581]*581Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.

Order denying motion to punish for contempt unanimously modified as indicated in opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, and the order denying motion for an examination before trial unanimously reversed in so far as appealed from and the motion granted as indicated in opinion, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant against the defendants-respondents. Settle orders on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Manning v. New York City Transit Authority
18 Misc. 2d 998 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 A.D. 579, 17 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayew-v-willard-hawes-co-nyappdiv-1940.