Goldman v. Salzberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Salzberg

45 A.D.2d 680, 356 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6053

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

DecidedJune 6, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 680 (Goldman v. Salzberg) 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

Goldman v. Salzberg, 45 A.D.2d 680, 356 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11, 1973, which, inter alia, denied a protective order with respect to three items demanded in a notice to produce, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted as to Items Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff seeks a percentage of the net profits of the defendant corportaion for the period of his employment. The appeal concerns the demand, in the plaintiff’s notice to produce in connection with a scheduled deposition, for income tax returns, transcripts of checking accounts, and financial statements filed with lending institutions. Until the right of a percentage of the net profits is established, the plaintiff should not obtain [681]*681details which have to do with the amount that may be due rather than with the basic claim. (Barnett Robinson, Inc. v. F. Staal, Inc., 43 A D 2d 826.) Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11, 1973, which, inter alia, denied a protective order with respect to three items demanded in a notice to produce, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted as to Items Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff seeks a percentage of the net profits of the defendant corportaion for the period of his employment. The appeal concerns the demand, in the plaintiff’s notice to produce in connection with a scheduled deposition, for income tax returns, transcripts of checking accounts, and financial statements filed with lending institutions. Until the right of a percentage of the net profits is established, the plaintiff should not obtain [681]*681details which have to do with the amount that may be due rather than with the basic claim. (Barnett Robinson, Inc. v. F. Staal, Inc., 43 A D 2d 826.) Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 680, 356 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-salzberg-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack