Dodge v. Richmond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dodge v. Richmond

7 A.D.2d 842, 181 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10156

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 842 (Dodge v. Richmond) 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

Dodge v. Richmond, 7 A.D.2d 842, 181 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

By this action, the plaintiff seeks recovery for commissions in connection with the sale of the assets of a steel company, under an alleged agreement for the payment thereof by the defendant. The defendant claims that at a hearing held by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the plaintiff testified, in effect, that there was no arrangement by which he was to be compensated for the sale. Special Term denied the defendant’s motion for discovery and inspection of a certified copy of the minutes of the plaintiff’s testimony before the Securities and Exchange Commission. It appears that the defendant is unable to obtain a copy of that testimony without the authorization or consent of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has refused such consent. Under the circumstances, this testimony may be material to the substantive issue. The order is therefore modified, with costs to the appellant, to provide that the plaintiff is directed to procure a certified copy of his testimony, if he does not have it. If the defendant, by subpoena duces tecum, requires the production of that testimony, it is to be delivered to the trial court at the [843]*843commencement of the trial for determination as to its use, if any, at the trial. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Yalente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

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

By this action, the plaintiff seeks recovery for commissions in connection with the sale of the assets of a steel company, under an alleged agreement for the payment thereof by the defendant. The defendant claims that at a hearing held by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the plaintiff testified, in effect, that there was no arrangement by which he was to be compensated for the sale. Special Term denied the defendant’s motion for discovery and inspection of a certified copy of the minutes of the plaintiff’s testimony before the Securities and Exchange Commission. It appears that the defendant is unable to obtain a copy of that testimony without the authorization or consent of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has refused such consent. Under the circumstances, this testimony may be material to the substantive issue. The order is therefore modified, with costs to the appellant, to provide that the plaintiff is directed to procure a certified copy of his testimony, if he does not have it. If the defendant, by subpoena duces tecum, requires the production of that testimony, it is to be delivered to the trial court at the [843]*843commencement of the trial for determination as to its use, if any, at the trial. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Yalente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 842, 181 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-v-richmond-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack