Jenkins v. Brod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. Brod

27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 834 (Jenkins v. Brod) 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

Jenkins v. Brod, 27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Order entered March 4, 1966, granting plaintiff’s motion pursuant to OP'LR 3102 (subd. [e]) to take the oral deposition of defendant Irven Jack Brod for the purpose of preparing a complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice to renewal thereof after completion of the below-mentioned examination of books and records. Plaintiff’s present papers make an insufficient showing of the existence of a cause of action to warrant taking the deposition of defendant Brod (see Matter of Fili v. Fili, 27 A D 2d 908, and cases cited). Said defendant, however, by the last paragraph of his affidavit sworn to February 18, 1966, has consented to an examination of various books and records which may conceivably demonstrate a need for his deposition; and he does not oppose a renewal of plaintiff’s motion after the completion of such examination. The procedures for the examination consistent with such consent are to be set forth in the order to be entered hereon. Settle order on notice. Concur—'Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, MeGivern and Witmer, JJ.

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

—■ Order entered March 4, 1966, granting plaintiff’s motion pursuant to OP'LR 3102 (subd. [e]) to take the oral deposition of defendant Irven Jack Brod for the purpose of preparing a complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice to renewal thereof after completion of the below-mentioned examination of books and records. Plaintiff’s present papers make an insufficient showing of the existence of a cause of action to warrant taking the deposition of defendant Brod (see Matter of Fili v. Fili, 27 A D 2d 908, and cases cited). Said defendant, however, by the last paragraph of his affidavit sworn to February 18, 1966, has consented to an examination of various books and records which may conceivably demonstrate a need for his deposition; and he does not oppose a renewal of plaintiff’s motion after the completion of such examination. The procedures for the examination consistent with such consent are to be set forth in the order to be entered hereon. Settle order on notice. Concur—'Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, MeGivern and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-brod-nyappdiv-1967.