Pitman v. Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pitman v. Ehrlich

17 A.D.2d 784, 232 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 784 (Pitman v. Ehrlich) 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

Pitman v. Ehrlich, 17 A.D.2d 784, 232 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 3, 1962, denying defendants’ motion to examine before trial, as a witness, the customer allegedly procured by the plaintiff broker in this action for brokerage commissions, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants. Special circumstances warranting the examination have been satisfactorily shown in the past and existing relationships between the witness sought to be examined and the plaintiff, the exclusive knowledge possessed by the witness as to material, possibly critical evidence and his attitude toward defendants which borders on hostility (Courtland v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 6 A D 2d 789; Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A D 2d 430, 435). Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 3, 1962, denying defendants’ motion to examine before trial, as a witness, the customer allegedly procured by the plaintiff broker in this action for brokerage commissions, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants. Special circumstances warranting the examination have been satisfactorily shown in the past and existing relationships between the witness sought to be examined and the plaintiff, the exclusive knowledge possessed by the witness as to material, possibly critical evidence and his attitude toward defendants which borders on hostility (Courtland v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 6 A D 2d 789; Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A D 2d 430, 435). Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 784, 232 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitman-v-ehrlich-nyappdiv-1962.