Martin v. Columbia Pictures Corp.
123 N.E.2d 572, 307 N.Y. 922, 1954 N.Y. LEXIS 1603
Opinion
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Lewis, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye and Froessed, JJ. Conway, Fund and Van Voorhis, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: While we, of course, agrée that “ the Supreme Court has power, in its sound discretion, upon good cause shown ”, to direct an inspection of corporate books (Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250, 265; see, also, Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464), we do not believe that such cause was shown to exist in this case to justify the order that was made.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martin v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 123 N.E.2d 572, 307 N.Y. 922, 1954 N.Y. LEXIS 1603 (N.Y. 1954).
123 N.E.2d 572 (Martin v. Columbia Pictures Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mtr. of Ochs v. Wash. Hgts. Fs & L. Assn.
17 N.Y.2d 82 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Ochs v. Washington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
215 N.E.2d 485 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Smilkstein v. J. Smilkstein & Sons, Inc.
32 Misc. 2d 882 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Stoopack v. George A. Fuller Co.
18 Misc. 2d 977 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Martin v. Columbia Pictures Corp.
125 N.E.2d 103 (New York Court of Appeals, 1955)