Iroquois Hotel & Apartment Co. v. Iroquois Realty Co.

126 A.D. 814, 111 N.Y.S. 172, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 19, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 126 A.D. 814 (Iroquois Hotel & Apartment Co. v. Iroquois Realty Co.) 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
Iroquois Hotel & Apartment Co. v. Iroquois Realty Co., 126 A.D. 814, 111 N.Y.S. 172, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The action is for damages for an alleged wrongful eviction of the plaintiff from premises used as a hotel.

In conducting its business the plaintiff kept books showing resulting profit or loss and these books defendant asked to be permitted to "inspect. The defendant denies the wrongful eviction or that any damage- resulted. The books of the plaintiff will show whether the hotel business was profitable or not, and if profitable to what extent plaintiff suffered damage from its eviction. Damages being claimed and denied their amount is a material issue in the case. Section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits an inspection of the books or papers of an adverse party “ relating to the merits of the action or of the defence therein.” A right of inspection of books and papers is thus expressly given by the Code to a defendant where they affect the merits of the defense, and this defense need not necessarily be an affirmative one. Such inspection may greatly facilitate the trial and relieve the court from much detail as well as apprise the parties so they may meet the particular dispute [815]*815involved and should be granted where a proper case is disclosed. (Hart v. Ogdensburg & L. c. R. R. Co., 69 Hun, 497; Powers v. Elmendorf, 4 How. Pr. 60; Rhoades v. Schwartz, 52 App. Div. 379; Edmonds v. Attucks Music Publishing Co., 117 id. 486.)

We think the defendant showed facts entitling it to the inspection asked for. The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs.

Present — Ingraham, Laughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Soott, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs.

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

Related

Gordon v. 580 Equities, Inc.
5 Misc. 2d 330 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1957)
Milton Kauffman, Inc. v. Superior Court
210 P.2d 88 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Union Trust Co. v. Superior Court
81 P.2d 150 (California Supreme Court, 1938)
Reich v. E. W. Bliss Building, Inc.
73 Misc. 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Hotchkiss v. Levi
140 A.D. 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D. 814, 111 N.Y.S. 172, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iroquois-hotel-apartment-co-v-iroquois-realty-co-nyappdiv-1908.