Capitol Distributors Corp. v. Goldberg

New York Supreme Court

Capitol Distributors Corp. v. Goldberg

172 Misc. 157, 14 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2287

DecidedJuly 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 172 Misc. 157 (Capitol Distributors Corp. v. Goldberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capitol Distributors Corp. v. Goldberg, 172 Misc. 157, 14 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2287 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Steuer, J.

By this proceeding the petitioners seek to get back from their attorney certain papers upon which the attorney claims a general lien. The petitioners offer security in the form of a surety company bond for the entire amount of the fees claimed by the attorney. Under these circumstances the court has ample power to direct that the documents be turned over. (Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N. Y. 467.) The objections raised are that the papers will be exhibits in a pending action by the attorney for his services and the attorney is fearful of their being lost if they pass out of his possession. The respondent can obviate the danger by making photostats of such papers as he deems important. The respondent also claims that in an investigation he made informal assurance to the district attorney that he would keep these papers. He can reheve himself of any embarrassment in this respect by notifying that official that the papers are shortly to leave his possession and thereby put that office on notice so that whatever steps are desirable may be taken.

The order should provide that the bond be given and should be for the recovery of whatever judgment may be had in the attorney’s action, including interest and costs, and against any of the defendants therein sued. The order should further provide that the bond should be tendered and the documents delivered three days after the service of the order.

Settle order accordingly.

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

Steuer, J.

By this proceeding the petitioners seek to get back from their attorney certain papers upon which the attorney claims a general lien. The petitioners offer security in the form of a surety company bond for the entire amount of the fees claimed by the attorney. Under these circumstances the court has ample power to direct that the documents be turned over. (Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N. Y. 467.) The objections raised are that the papers will be exhibits in a pending action by the attorney for his services and the attorney is fearful of their being lost if they pass out of his possession. The respondent can obviate the danger by making photostats of such papers as he deems important. The respondent also claims that in an investigation he made informal assurance to the district attorney that he would keep these papers. He can reheve himself of any embarrassment in this respect by notifying that official that the papers are shortly to leave his possession and thereby put that office on notice so that whatever steps are desirable may be taken.

The order should provide that the bond be given and should be for the recovery of whatever judgment may be had in the attorney’s action, including interest and costs, and against any of the defendants therein sued. The order should further provide that the bond should be tendered and the documents delivered three days after the service of the order.

Settle order accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Misc. 157, 14 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capitol-distributors-corp-v-goldberg-nysupct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack