Campo v. Nardone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campo v. Nardone

22 A.D.2d 716, 253 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3049

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 716 (Campo v. Nardone) 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

Campo v. Nardone, 22 A.D.2d 716, 253 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs moved for examination on the subjects appearing in paragraphs numbered 1 through 8 of their notice, of motion. The motion was granted as to paragraphs 1 and 2 and denied on the ground of irrelevancy as to the remaining six paragraphs. On this appeal the plaintiffs have abandoned 8. The defendant is a lawyer who represented both buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. He is sued for misrepresentation. The plaintiffs were the buyers. In view of the defendant’s unusual fiduciary relationship we think a more liberal view should have been taken. Order modified by granting examination also as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs moved for examination on the subjects appearing in paragraphs numbered 1 through 8 of their notice, of motion. The motion was granted as to paragraphs 1 and 2 and denied on the ground of irrelevancy as to the remaining six paragraphs. On this appeal the plaintiffs have abandoned 8. The defendant is a lawyer who represented both buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. He is sued for misrepresentation. The plaintiffs were the buyers. In view of the defendant’s unusual fiduciary relationship we think a more liberal view should have been taken. Order modified by granting examination also as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 716, 253 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campo-v-nardone-nyappdiv-1964.