Corso v. Danzilo

New York Supreme Court

Corso v. Danzilo

145 Misc. 892, 260 N.Y.S. 363, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1597

DecidedAugust 22, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 892 (Corso v. Danzilo) 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

Corso v. Danzilo, 145 Misc. 892, 260 N.Y.S. 363, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1597 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuef, J.

This is an action to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting. Answer denies partnership. Plaintiff will be allowed to examine on those issues which he has the burden to affirmatively prove. He must establish the partnership. He will not be permitted to go into the issues of the accounting because that is unnecessary at this time. If he fails to win an interlocutory decree, he never had the right to examine into defendant’s accounts. To allow him to do so now would be unjust and open the door to unscrupulous litigants to pry improperly into other people’s private affairs. His questioning will be confined to the issue of the existence or nonexistence of the partnership. Defendant consents as to items 2, 4 and 5 of the notice. In addition, plaintiff may examine as to items 1 and 13. Motion to vacate granted as to items 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.

Settle order on notice, fixing date of examination by agreement.

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

Cuef, J.

This is an action to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting. Answer denies partnership. Plaintiff will be allowed to examine on those issues which he has the burden to affirmatively prove. He must establish the partnership. He will not be permitted to go into the issues of the accounting because that is unnecessary at this time. If he fails to win an interlocutory decree, he never had the right to examine into defendant’s accounts. To allow him to do so now would be unjust and open the door to unscrupulous litigants to pry improperly into other people’s private affairs. His questioning will be confined to the issue of the existence or nonexistence of the partnership. Defendant consents as to items 2, 4 and 5 of the notice. In addition, plaintiff may examine as to items 1 and 13. Motion to vacate granted as to items 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.

Settle order on notice, fixing date of examination by agreement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 892, 260 N.Y.S. 363, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corso-v-danzilo-nysupct-1932.