Kaplan v. Sacks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Sacks

8 A.D.2d 731, 187 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692

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

DecidedMay 11, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 731 (Kaplan v. Sacks) 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

Kaplan v. Sacks, 8 A.D.2d 731, 187 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by attorneys to recover the reasonable value of services rendered as necessaries to Alvia Sacks, the wife of respondent Melvin Sacks, in the maintenance of an action for a separation, the appeals are from an order granting the motion of respondent Melvin Sacks to vacate a notice to examine his wife before trial, and from a separate order granting his wife’s motion to vacate such notice and a subpoena calling for her personal appearance at such examination. Orders reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the respective motions denied. The examination is to proceed on 10 days’ notice. In our opinion, there was a sufficient showing that the wife will probably be an unfriendly, if not hostile, witness, adequate to support appellants’ claim that the resultant situation constituted “special circumstances ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288) justifying her examination before trial (cf. Malagoli v. Bernstein, 1 A D 2d 1042; Pease & Elliman v. Kress & Co., 4 A D 2d 829). Any claim of privilege now asserted may be protected by proper objection upon the examination or on trial (Matter of Village of Lawrence [Hicks Development Corp.], 285 App. Div. 823). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by attorneys to recover the reasonable value of services rendered as necessaries to Alvia Sacks, the wife of respondent Melvin Sacks, in the maintenance of an action for a separation, the appeals are from an order granting the motion of respondent Melvin Sacks to vacate a notice to examine his wife before trial, and from a separate order granting his wife’s motion to vacate such notice and a subpoena calling for her personal appearance at such examination. Orders reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the respective motions denied. The examination is to proceed on 10 days’ notice. In our opinion, there was a sufficient showing that the wife will probably be an unfriendly, if not hostile, witness, adequate to support appellants’ claim that the resultant situation constituted “special circumstances ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288) justifying her examination before trial (cf. Malagoli v. Bernstein, 1 A D 2d 1042; Pease & Elliman v. Kress & Co., 4 A D 2d 829). Any claim of privilege now asserted may be protected by proper objection upon the examination or on trial (Matter of Village of Lawrence [Hicks Development Corp.], 285 App. Div. 823). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 731, 187 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-sacks-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack