De Salvo v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Salvo v. Kaplan

52 A.D.2d 570, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142

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

DecidedApril 30, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 570 (De Salvo v. Kaplan) 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

De Salvo v. Kaplan, 52 A.D.2d 570, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Application unanimously granted to the extent of reversing, vacating and annulling the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 19, 1976, without costs and without disbursements. The action of the court in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt was unwarranted and unjustified. We find on this record that there was no duty on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions of the court to produce the file, which petitioner maintained as trial counsel, for inspection by the court. It is true that, at the hearing of April 13, 1976, the court apparently made some modification of its original order so that it directed the petitioner to produce "those statements which would show contrary to the conditions alleged by plaintiff”. But this direction, too, was invalid. There was no duty on the petitioner, as trial counsel, to produce his file, or any portion thereof, for the inspection of the court prior to trial. We can understand that, under certain conditions during a trial, the court may well require the production of a particular document or statement, depending upon the state of proof at that time. But this is not our case. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Application unanimously granted to the extent of reversing, vacating and annulling the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 19, 1976, without costs and without disbursements. The action of the court in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt was unwarranted and unjustified. We find on this record that there was no duty on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions of the court to produce the file, which petitioner maintained as trial counsel, for inspection by the court. It is true that, at the hearing of April 13, 1976, the court apparently made some modification of its original order so that it directed the petitioner to produce "those statements which would show contrary to the conditions alleged by plaintiff”. But this direction, too, was invalid. There was no duty on the petitioner, as trial counsel, to produce his file, or any portion thereof, for the inspection of the court prior to trial. We can understand that, under certain conditions during a trial, the court may well require the production of a particular document or statement, depending upon the state of proof at that time. But this is not our case. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 570, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-salvo-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack