Jacobs v. Brody

New York Supreme Court

Jacobs v. Brody

145 Misc. 891, 260 N.Y.S. 367, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1598

DecidedAugust 22, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 891 (Jacobs v. Brody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacobs v. Brody, 145 Misc. 891, 260 N.Y.S. 367, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1598 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuff, J.

Action is to establish a joint venture among plaintiff and defendants. Answer denies every allegation of the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to examine Philip and Nettie Brody, defendants. Many reasons are advanced by defendants why this examination should not be permitted, such as: It is not material and necessary, ambiguous and too wide in scope, premature, and so forth. These are not legal objections. A plaintiff may examine one or more defendants as to issues concerning which he has the burden to affirmatively prove and also as to a defense .which, if unanswered and established, would destroy his cause of action. (Oshinsky v. Gumberg, 188 App. Div. 23.) The objection raised, that plaintiff cannot examine until she obtains her interlocutory decree, is good as to the issues concerning the accounting. It is not as to matters which she has to prove to win the interlocutory decree. The examination will be permitted as to those matters.

Motion to vacate is granted as to items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15. Settle order on notice fixing time of examination by agreement.

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

Cuff, J.

Action is to establish a joint venture among plaintiff and defendants. Answer denies every allegation of the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to examine Philip and Nettie Brody, defendants. Many reasons are advanced by defendants why this examination should not be permitted, such as: It is not material and necessary, ambiguous and too wide in scope, premature, and so forth. These are not legal objections. A plaintiff may examine one or more defendants as to issues concerning which he has the burden to affirmatively prove and also as to a defense .which, if unanswered and established, would destroy his cause of action. (Oshinsky v. Gumberg, 188 App. Div. 23.) The objection raised, that plaintiff cannot examine until she obtains her interlocutory decree, is good as to the issues concerning the accounting. It is not as to matters which she has to prove to win the interlocutory decree. The examination will be permitted as to those matters.

Motion to vacate is granted as to items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15. Settle order on notice fixing time of examination by agreement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 891, 260 N.Y.S. 367, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-brody-nysupct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack