Kings County Bank of Brooklyn v. Dougherty

New York Supreme Court

Kings County Bank of Brooklyn v. Dougherty

20 N.Y.S. 817, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 811

DecidedNovember 18, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y.S. 817 (Kings County Bank of Brooklyn v. Dougherty) 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

Kings County Bank of Brooklyn v. Dougherty, 20 N.Y.S. 817, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 811 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon examining the petition, supplemented by the affidavit of the attorney at law and expert accountant, we think a proper case was made out for the granting of the order for an inspection of the plaintiff’s books. The objection that the petition is in part based upon information and belief is not fatal, for the reason that the essential averments are stated positively, and receive support from the accountant, who, in the examination already made in action No. 1, states the condition of the account of Giulia Brandéis with the bank, and the necessity for requiring, in order that the defendant .might obtain the information requisite for his defense, a further [818]*818examination than that accorded by the former order of discovery, which limited the period over which the examination should extend. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and upon the settlement of the order counsel will be afforded an opportunity of presenting their views as to the extent of the examination.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon examining the petition, supplemented by the affidavit of the attorney at law and expert accountant, we think a proper case was made out for the granting of the order for an inspection of the plaintiff’s books. The objection that the petition is in part based upon information and belief is not fatal, for the reason that the essential averments are stated positively, and receive support from the accountant, who, in the examination already made in action No. 1, states the condition of the account of Giulia Brandéis with the bank, and the necessity for requiring, in order that the defendant .might obtain the information requisite for his defense, a further [818]*818examination than that accorded by the former order of discovery, which limited the period over which the examination should extend. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and upon the settlement of the order counsel will be afforded an opportunity of presenting their views as to the extent of the examination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.Y.S. 817, 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kings-county-bank-of-brooklyn-v-dougherty-nysupct-1892.