Fincke v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fincke v. Roberts

17 A.D.2d 926, 233 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 926 (Fincke v. Roberts) 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

Fincke v. Roberts, 17 A.D.2d 926, 233 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 19, 1962, insofar as it denies plaintiffs’ cross motion to examine an attorney before trial as a witness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. In this action — by the widow and son of a decedent to set aside the designation by the decedent of defendant Roberts as a beneficiary of about $22,000 in benefits of the decedent in the New York City Employees’ Retirement System — it is averred that the attorney, whose examination is sought, prepared the documents designating the beneficiary, participated in their execution and acted as notary. The papers are claimed to have been executed by the decedent (about a month before he died) in a hospital after the decedent had undergone surgery for cancer and was under heavy sedation. Moreover, it appears that the attorney, whom the plaintiffs seek to examine, is an office associate of the attorney for defendant Roberts. Hence, there is indication that the proposed witness will be a reluctant, if not a hostile, witness. The foregoing facts sufficiently demonstrate the existence of special circumstances to warrant the examination of the attorney as a witness. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on June 19, 1962, insofar as it denies plaintiffs’ cross motion to examine an attorney before trial as a witness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. In this action — by the widow and son of a decedent to set aside the designation by the decedent of defendant Roberts as a beneficiary of about $22,000 in benefits of the decedent in the New York City Employees’ Retirement System — it is averred that the attorney, whose examination is sought, prepared the documents designating the beneficiary, participated in their execution and acted as notary. The papers are claimed to have been executed by the decedent (about a month before he died) in a hospital after the decedent had undergone surgery for cancer and was under heavy sedation. Moreover, it appears that the attorney, whom the plaintiffs seek to examine, is an office associate of the attorney for defendant Roberts. Hence, there is indication that the proposed witness will be a reluctant, if not a hostile, witness. The foregoing facts sufficiently demonstrate the existence of special circumstances to warrant the examination of the attorney as a witness. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 926, 233 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fincke-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1962.