Kew Homestead Corp. v. Underwriters Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kew Homestead Corp. v. Underwriters Trust Co.

259 A.D. 840, 19 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6929

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

DecidedApril 15, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 840 (Kew Homestead Corp. v. Underwriters Trust 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

Kew Homestead Corp. v. Underwriters Trust Co., 259 A.D. 840, 19 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action in conversion. Order denying plaintiff’s motion, under section 325 of the Civil Practice Act, to punish the defendant for failing to obey the order of discovery and inspection, dated November 24, 1939, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, the motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and defendant is debarred from denying plaintiff’s valuation of the personal property as stated in the complaint. If defendant permits the inspection within ten days from the entry of the order hereon, it may apply at Special Term to be relieved of the said debarment. The defendant has the right to enter the premises for the purposes of exhibition or examination; and it is within its power to obey the order. Disobedience of the order is not excused because the tenant objects to the inspection. Furthermore, the tenant was placed in the position under which it assumes to refuse inspection and examination by the action of the defendant after knowledge by the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Action in conversion. Order denying plaintiff’s motion, under section 325 of the Civil Practice Act, to punish the defendant for failing to obey the order of discovery and inspection, dated November 24, 1939, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, the motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and defendant is debarred from denying plaintiff’s valuation of the personal property as stated in the complaint. If defendant permits the inspection within ten days from the entry of the order hereon, it may apply at Special Term to be relieved of the said debarment. The defendant has the right to enter the premises for the purposes of exhibition or examination; and it is within its power to obey the order. Disobedience of the order is not excused because the tenant objects to the inspection. Furthermore, the tenant was placed in the position under which it assumes to refuse inspection and examination by the action of the defendant after knowledge by the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 840, 19 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kew-homestead-corp-v-underwriters-trust-co-nyappdiv-1940.