Rose v. Rose

282 A.D. 682, 122 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1953·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and the motion for discovery and inspection denied. We think the extraordinary remedy of discovery and inspection is unnecessary in the circumstances in this ease. Application may be made for modification of the order for examination before trial so as to enable plaintiff to compel production of books and records before the referee named by Special Term, who will supervise the use of same for the limited purposes provided in section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.

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

Rose v. Rose, 282 A.D. 682, 122 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

282 A.D. 682 (Rose v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunter v. Hunter
10 A.D.2d 291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Levine v. Raymond
3 A.D.2d 36 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)