Cotler v. Retail Credit Co.

18 A.D.2d 898, 237 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4362
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 898 (Cotler v. Retail Credit Co.) 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
Cotler v. Retail Credit Co., 18 A.D.2d 898, 237 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

Order entered on December 11, 1962, granting reargument and upon such reargument denying motion for discovery and inspection in order to frame a complaint grounded on libel unanimously affirmed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. Plaintiffs have submitted their own affidavit reciting certain information allegedly furnished them by some unidentified member of their corporate insurance broker concerning! the supposed contents of a confidential report furnished life insurance companies by defendant, which is an investigating and reporting agency. “A plaintiff seeking an examination of a defendant to frame a complaint must show his case has merit ” (Kenerson v. Davis, 278 App. Div. 482, 485); and the affidavit of plaintiffs, unsupported by affidavits of other persons having information of the contents of the report, falls short of constituting such a showing. Plaintiffs may not secure an examination or discovery in order first to explore the feasibility of framing a complaint. It may be that plaintiffs can present under oath “ facts which will fairly indicate * * * some cause j of action against the adverse party ” (Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582, 583). This determination is therefore without prejudice to a renewal of the motion in the event plaintiffs can make a credible showing that they have suffered actionable wrong at the hands of defendant. Concur - Botein, P. J., Breitel, Yalente, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Holland v. 640 Columbia Owner LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 51706(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Hoffman v. Batridge
155 Misc. 2d 862 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Nicol v. Town of Rotterdam
134 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
In re Dack
101 Misc. 2d 490 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
In re Janosik
71 A.D.2d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Banco de Concepcion v. Manfra, Tordella & Brooke, Inc.
70 A.D.2d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Simpson
63 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.2d 898, 237 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotler-v-retail-credit-co-nyappdiv-1963.