Schwartzman v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartzman v. Weintraub

52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12532

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 767 (Schwartzman v. Weintraub) 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

Schwartzman v. Weintraub, 52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 12, 1975, granting plaintiff’s motion to add three corporations as parties defendant, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondent. Appeal from that portion of the order directing an examination of National Telephone Advertising, Inc., to appear by Lawrence Goldberg is dismissed as academic. The individual defendant Weintraub was in the business of making commercial surveys. Plaintiff approached him to expand the range of business and include political surveys. A contract was allegedly entered into which the defendant allegedly breached. This suit was brought naming the individual Weintraub and two corporate defendants over which he had control. The three additional corporate defendants sought to be added also appear to be owned or controlled by Weintraub, either through direct ownership of the controlling shares or through ownership of shares by a corporation which, in turn, is controlled by Weintraub. All three proposed corporate defendants are engaged in political research or other related [768]*768activities and are proper parties defendant to assure full litigation of the issues presented. We find that sufficient new facts uncovered by subsequent discovery proceedings were submitted to Special Term so that the order presently appealed does not constitute a modification or overruling of a prior order of Special Term denying an examination of Goldberg (cf. Kamp v Kamp, 59 NY 212; Abozoglou v Tsakalotos, 36 AD2d 516). In view of the fact that the examination of Lawrence Goldberg has taken place, the appeal from that portion of the order must be dismissed as academic (Delavan v New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 216 NY 359, 362). We parenthetically note that the use at trial, if any, to be made of the deposition taken should properly be reserved for ruling by the.trial court. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 12, 1975, granting plaintiff’s motion to add three corporations as parties defendant, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondent. Appeal from that portion of the order directing an examination of National Telephone Advertising, Inc., to appear by Lawrence Goldberg is dismissed as academic. The individual defendant Weintraub was in the business of making commercial surveys. Plaintiff approached him to expand the range of business and include political surveys. A contract was allegedly entered into which the defendant allegedly breached. This suit was brought naming the individual Weintraub and two corporate defendants over which he had control. The three additional corporate defendants sought to be added also appear to be owned or controlled by Weintraub, either through direct ownership of the controlling shares or through ownership of shares by a corporation which, in turn, is controlled by Weintraub. All three proposed corporate defendants are engaged in political research or other related [768]*768activities and are proper parties defendant to assure full litigation of the issues presented. We find that sufficient new facts uncovered by subsequent discovery proceedings were submitted to Special Term so that the order presently appealed does not constitute a modification or overruling of a prior order of Special Term denying an examination of Goldberg (cf. Kamp v Kamp, 59 NY 212; Abozoglou v Tsakalotos, 36 AD2d 516). In view of the fact that the examination of Lawrence Goldberg has taken place, the appeal from that portion of the order must be dismissed as academic (Delavan v New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 216 NY 359, 362). We parenthetically note that the use at trial, if any, to be made of the deposition taken should properly be reserved for ruling by the.trial court. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartzman-v-weintraub-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack