Crawford v. Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. Ehrlich

5 A.D.2d 859, 174 N.Y.S.2d 881, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2626, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 859 (Crawford v. Ehrlich) 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

Crawford v. Ehrlich, 5 A.D.2d 859, 174 N.Y.S.2d 881, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2626, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to vacate notice of examination before trial reversed in the exercise of discretion, with costs to appellant, and the motion to vacate granted. The notice of examination sought “All' relevant facts and circumstances leading up to and involving” $2,700 in U. S. Bonds, Series E, which were payable on death of the decedent to the executrix individually, and a [860]*860$1,000 insurance policy which had been assigned to the executrix in her individual name. Under the law, objectant could not have any interest in the U. S. Bonds which were payable to a stated beneficiary. The same applies to the insurance policy, which was assigned as far back as December, 1938. There could be nothing “illusory” about these matters. Moreover, since objeetant was not a creditor, she could not examine on any basis of the application of the Debtor and Creditor Law. Absent any possible legal interest in the transactions into which objeetant wanted to delve, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

[See post, p. 861.]

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

Order denying motion to vacate notice of examination before trial reversed in the exercise of discretion, with costs to appellant, and the motion to vacate granted. The notice of examination sought “All' relevant facts and circumstances leading up to and involving” $2,700 in U. S. Bonds, Series E, which were payable on death of the decedent to the executrix individually, and a [860]*860$1,000 insurance policy which had been assigned to the executrix in her individual name. Under the law, objectant could not have any interest in the U. S. Bonds which were payable to a stated beneficiary. The same applies to the insurance policy, which was assigned as far back as December, 1938. There could be nothing “illusory” about these matters. Moreover, since objeetant was not a creditor, she could not examine on any basis of the application of the Debtor and Creditor Law. Absent any possible legal interest in the transactions into which objeetant wanted to delve, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

[See post, p. 861.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 859, 174 N.Y.S.2d 881, 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2626, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-ehrlich-nyappdiv-1958.