Scamurra v. Ciancone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scamurra v. Ciancone

78 A.D.2d 584, 432 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12977

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 584 (Scamurra v. Ciancone) 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

Scamurra v. Ciancone, 78 A.D.2d 584, 432 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars by striking therefrom certain items but as a matter of discretion granted the alternative relief requested, i.e., that plaintiffs be permitted to obtain inspection and discovery prior to service of their bill. In their complaint, plaintiffs, minority stockholders, seek, inter alia, dissolution of the corporate defendants. Inasmuch as the demand seeks substantial data and detail presently unknown to plaintiffs and peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants, the court properly permitted disclosure prior to service of the bill (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.07, p 30-713; [585]*585Matter of Reynolds, 38 AD2d 788; King v McCormick, 19 AD2d 874). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—discovery.) Present—Cardamone, J:P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars by striking therefrom certain items but as a matter of discretion granted the alternative relief requested, i.e., that plaintiffs be permitted to obtain inspection and discovery prior to service of their bill. In their complaint, plaintiffs, minority stockholders, seek, inter alia, dissolution of the corporate defendants. Inasmuch as the demand seeks substantial data and detail presently unknown to plaintiffs and peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants, the court properly permitted disclosure prior to service of the bill (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.07, p 30-713; [585]*585Matter of Reynolds, 38 AD2d 788; King v McCormick, 19 AD2d 874). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—discovery.) Present—Cardamone, J:P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 584, 432 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scamurra-v-ciancone-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack