Blank v. Kaskel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blank v. Kaskel

24 A.D.2d 821, 263 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 821 (Blank v. Kaskel) 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

Blank v. Kaskel, 24 A.D.2d 821, 263 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

This appeal is from that part of an order which directed defendant’s attorney to appear for an examination before trial in Monticello, Sullivan County, New York, and to produce at that time certain books, records and other documents. The attorney sought to be examined does not appeal, but rather the defendant, who contends that his attorney’s office is in Kings County and that it was improper to direct that the examination be held in Monticello. Special Term found that special circumstances — instigated by the defendant — existed (see CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]), which justified the examination as directed. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J.

This appeal is from that part of an order which directed defendant’s attorney to appear for an examination before trial in Monticello, Sullivan County, New York, and to produce at that time certain books, records and other documents. The attorney sought to be examined does not appeal, but rather the defendant, who contends that his attorney’s office is in Kings County and that it was improper to direct that the examination be held in Monticello. Special Term found that special circumstances — instigated by the defendant — existed (see CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]), which justified the examination as directed. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 821, 263 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blank-v-kaskel-nyappdiv-1965.