Mackanin v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mackanin v. State

26 A.D.2d 605, 272 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871

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

DecidedJune 28, 1966

DocketClaim No. 42794

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 605 (Mackanin v. State) 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

Mackanin v. State, 26 A.D.2d 605, 272 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimants from a resettled order of the Court of Claims, which directed claimants to produce and allow copies to be made of their Federal and State Income Tax returns for the years 1959 to 1964. It is clear and, in fact, undisputed that the State in the instant ease is entitled to an examination of the returns sought under Fitzgerald v. State of New York (5 A D 2d 3). Furthermore, whether the order involved granting this examination would, on the present record, be proper under CPLR 3111 need not be here decided since CPLR 3120, which is invoked in addition to CPLR 3111 in the notice of motion which led to the [606]*606order appealed from, is clearly a basis for the order in question. Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimants from a resettled order of the Court of Claims, which directed claimants to produce and allow copies to be made of their Federal and State Income Tax returns for the years 1959 to 1964. It is clear and, in fact, undisputed that the State in the instant ease is entitled to an examination of the returns sought under Fitzgerald v. State of New York (5 A D 2d 3). Furthermore, whether the order involved granting this examination would, on the present record, be proper under CPLR 3111 need not be here decided since CPLR 3120, which is invoked in addition to CPLR 3111 in the notice of motion which led to the [606]*606order appealed from, is clearly a basis for the order in question. Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 605, 272 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackanin-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.