Codd v. Meehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Codd v. Meehan

264 A.D. 910, 35 N.Y.S.2d 769

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 910 (Codd v. Meehan) 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

Codd v. Meehan, 264 A.D. 910, 35 N.Y.S.2d 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Special Term would have been warranted in denying this motion in toto, in view of the prolixity of the demands. Having granted a partial examination, we find that, in addition to the issue of agency on which Special Term permitted examination, it should have allowed the following: (1) The employment of plaintiff’s assignor by defendant Meehan through defendant MeConnochie; (2) the terms of said hiring; (3) that plaintiff’s assignor produced a ready purchaser or purchasers, and (4) the failure or refusal of defendants to consummate the sales, such examination to include any negotiations or transactions relating to the proposed sales of the blocks of 100,000 and 200,000 shares, respectively.

The order, so far as appealed from, should be modified accordingly, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice.

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

Pee Curiam.

Special Term would have been warranted in denying this motion in toto, in view of the prolixity of the demands. Having granted a partial examination, we find that, in addition to the issue of agency on which Special Term permitted examination, it should have allowed the following: (1) The employment of plaintiff’s assignor by defendant Meehan through defendant MeConnochie; (2) the terms of said hiring; (3) that plaintiff’s assignor produced a ready purchaser or purchasers, and (4) the failure or refusal of defendants to consummate the sales, such examination to include any negotiations or transactions relating to the proposed sales of the blocks of 100,000 and 200,000 shares, respectively.

The order, so far as appealed from, should be modified accordingly, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 910, 35 N.Y.S.2d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/codd-v-meehan-nyappdiv-1942.