Schimmel v. Messing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schimmel v. Messing

278 A.D. 674, 102 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 674 (Schimmel v. Messing) 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

Schimmel v. Messing, 278 A.D. 674, 102 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting, plaintiff Schimmel appeals from so much of an order which denied him the right to examine defendants before trial as to certain items. Order modified on the law by striking out the second ordering paragraph and substituting therefor the following: “ Ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby granted as to items ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘H’ set forth in said affidavit. Such examination as to those items, however, shall not include inquiry as to the amounts deposited [675]*675or withdrawn from the bank account.” As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. The examination shall proceed on five days’ notice. Inquiry as to the matters stated in items “ C ”, “ D ”■ and “ H ” may establish conversion of the funds of the union and justify a decree directing an accounting. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 769.]

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

In an action for an accounting, plaintiff Schimmel appeals from so much of an order which denied him the right to examine defendants before trial as to certain items. Order modified on the law by striking out the second ordering paragraph and substituting therefor the following: “ Ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby granted as to items ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘H’ set forth in said affidavit. Such examination as to those items, however, shall not include inquiry as to the amounts deposited [675]*675or withdrawn from the bank account.” As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. The examination shall proceed on five days’ notice. Inquiry as to the matters stated in items “ C ”, “ D ”■ and “ H ” may establish conversion of the funds of the union and justify a decree directing an accounting. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 769.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 674, 102 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schimmel-v-messing-nyappdiv-1951.