Rubel Corp. v. Santoro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubel Corp. v. Santoro

259 A.D. 750, 18 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6531

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 750 (Rubel Corp. v. Santoro) 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

Rubel Corp. v. Santoro, 259 A.D. 750, 18 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order as denies plaintiff’s [751]*751motion for the examination before trial of respondents Yorkville lee Sales Corporation, Williamsburg Ice Co., Inc., and William Hagedorn, with respect to item “ 10 ” in the demand for examination and discovery, and further denies a discovery and inspection of the books and records of these respondents. Order in so far as appealed from modified so as to provide that plaintiff’s motion be granted to the extent that an examination be permitted as to the names of the wholesale customers and the gross amount of wholesale ice business obtained by respondents through defendants Santoro, and a discovery and inspection be permitted of the books and records of respondents relating to these same matters. As so modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. In our opinion these matters are material and necessary and relate to the merits of the action, and to the extent indicated plaintiff is entitled to an examination and discovery and inspection. Plaintiff is not entitled to the same relief with respect to the net profits realized by respondents as a result of the alleged wrongful acts. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of an order as denies plaintiff’s [751]*751motion for the examination before trial of respondents Yorkville lee Sales Corporation, Williamsburg Ice Co., Inc., and William Hagedorn, with respect to item “ 10 ” in the demand for examination and discovery, and further denies a discovery and inspection of the books and records of these respondents. Order in so far as appealed from modified so as to provide that plaintiff’s motion be granted to the extent that an examination be permitted as to the names of the wholesale customers and the gross amount of wholesale ice business obtained by respondents through defendants Santoro, and a discovery and inspection be permitted of the books and records of respondents relating to these same matters. As so modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. In our opinion these matters are material and necessary and relate to the merits of the action, and to the extent indicated plaintiff is entitled to an examination and discovery and inspection. Plaintiff is not entitled to the same relief with respect to the net profits realized by respondents as a result of the alleged wrongful acts. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 750, 18 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubel-corp-v-santoro-nyappdiv-1940.