Fili v. Fili

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fili v. Fili

27 A.D.2d 908, 278 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504

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

DecidedApril 4, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 908 (Fili v. Fili) 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

Fili v. Fili, 27 A.D.2d 908, 278 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

-Order entered on April 19, 1966, granting petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd. [c]) to take the oral deposition of respondent and to examine the books and records of J. F. N. Associates, Inc., a corporation of which respondent is an officer and an owner of a substantial stock interest, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, and the application is denied. This application is virtually identical with one made by petitioner before Mr. Justice Aurelio which was denied by him by order dated June 2, 1964, from which no appeal was taken. It is more in the nature of a motion to renew or reargue the previous application rather than a new application, and thus it should have been made to Mr. Justice Aurelio (CPLR 2221; Ecco High Frequency Corp. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 81 N. Y. S., 2d 897, affd. 274 App. Div. 982; 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 8:73-8:83). Moreover, on the merits petitioner fails to make a case for the requested examination, because she rests it on suspicion only (Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582; Kenerson V. Davis, 278 App. Div. 482). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

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

-Order entered on April 19, 1966, granting petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd. [c]) to take the oral deposition of respondent and to examine the books and records of J. F. N. Associates, Inc., a corporation of which respondent is an officer and an owner of a substantial stock interest, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, and the application is denied. This application is virtually identical with one made by petitioner before Mr. Justice Aurelio which was denied by him by order dated June 2, 1964, from which no appeal was taken. It is more in the nature of a motion to renew or reargue the previous application rather than a new application, and thus it should have been made to Mr. Justice Aurelio (CPLR 2221; Ecco High Frequency Corp. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 81 N. Y. S., 2d 897, affd. 274 App. Div. 982; 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 8:73-8:83). Moreover, on the merits petitioner fails to make a case for the requested examination, because she rests it on suspicion only (Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A D 2d 582; Kenerson V. Davis, 278 App. Div. 482). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 908, 278 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fili-v-fili-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack