Kent v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kent v. Maryland Casualty Co.

25 A.D.2d 653, 268 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 653 (Kent v. Maryland Casualty 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

Kent v. Maryland Casualty Co., 25 A.D.2d 653, 268 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

'Order entered October 21, 1965, denying defendant’s motion made pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [d]) and 3103, for a protective order against the examination before trial by plaintiff of defendant’s independent auditor, employed by defendant to audit plaintiff’s books under the policy of robbery and burglary insurance upon which plaintiff has brought suit herein, reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 eosts and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted. After the alleged burglary and before suit was brought, defendant employed the auditor to examine plaintiff’s books with respect to the loss, in anticipation of a claim therefor. In its answer to the complaint, defendant alleges as an affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to keep books and records of the insured property

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

'Order entered October 21, 1965, denying defendant’s motion made pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [d]) and 3103, for a protective order against the examination before trial by plaintiff of defendant’s independent auditor, employed by defendant to audit plaintiff’s books under the policy of robbery and burglary insurance upon which plaintiff has brought suit herein, reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 eosts and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted. After the alleged burglary and before suit was brought, defendant employed the auditor to examine plaintiff’s books with respect to the loss, in anticipation of a claim therefor. In its answer to the complaint, defendant alleges as an affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to keep books and records of the insured property

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 653, 268 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-maryland-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack