L. Michel Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Randall Avenue Theatre Corp.

179 Misc. 998, 39 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1579
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedJanuary 22, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 179 Misc. 998 (L. Michel Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Randall Avenue Theatre Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
L. Michel Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Randall Avenue Theatre Corp., 179 Misc. 998, 39 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1579 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1943).

Opinion

McCullen, J.

The attorney for the creditor, upon examination in proceedings supplementary to judgment of the third party, an attorney at law, asked him whether or not, as assignee or agent, he had in his possession or had received any moneys belonging to the individual debtor or for his account. The third party declined to answer on the ground that he was the attorney for the said debtor and hence the information sought was privileged.

While an attorney may not disclose a communication made by his client to him or his advice given thereon (Civ. Prac. Act, § 353), such prohibition does not extend to money or property received by or in the custody or control of the attorney, for he merely becomes the agent of his client with respect thereto.

[999]*999Such agency is not within the scope of his professional function as an attorney and consequently does not constitute a communication within the statutory prohibition. (Phoebus v. Webster, 40 Misc. 528; Matter of Howe v. Stuart, 68 Misc. 352.)

The contention of the third party, that his denial that he at present has any funds of the said debtor necessitates a closing of his examination as a third party and the institution of a proceeding to examine him as a witness, is without merit. Having appeared without questioning the sufficiency of the third-party subpoena served on him, he may not by a bare denial of indebtedness or possession preclude the creditor from further examination with respect to his transactions with the said debtor in relation to such property unless and until he is subpoenaed as a witness. Such procedure would not only needlessly hamper the creditor but would defeat the intent of the statute to afford him a complete and searching examination to ascertain the assets of the debtor.

The third party is directed to answer all questions as to property of the said individual debtor received by him and the disposition, if any, which has been made of same. The examination is to be continued at Special Term, Part II, on January 29, 1943, at 2 p. m., at which time the third party is directed to attend.

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

Related

Randy International, Ltd. v. Automatic Compactor Corp.
97 Misc. 2d 977 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1979)
Circle Floor Co. v. Siltan Corp.
36 Misc. 2d 634 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Monticello Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.
12 F.R.D. 344 (S.D. New York, 1952)
In re the Estate of Feinberg
185 Misc. 862 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 Misc. 998, 39 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-michel-plumbing-heating-corp-v-randall-avenue-theatre-corp-nynyccityct-1943.