Smith v. Koonz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Koonz

189 A.D. 913

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1919

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D. 913 (Smith v. Koonz) 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

Smith v. Koonz, 189 A.D. 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The circumstances disclosed in the affidavit are such as to justify the court that made the order for the examination of defendant in acting upon an affidavit made by plaintiff’s attorney. The case falls within the principle of Oshinsky v. Gumberg (188 App. Div. 23), in that the examination is for the purpose of proving plaintiff’s ease only. The facts shown to the court indicate that the defendants, and they alone, have personal knowledge of exactly what was done in the operation upon plaintiff’s mouth. Those facts the plaintiff must prove; and as the defendants alone have the knowledge, their examination is material and necessary to the plaintiff’s case. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ., concurred.

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

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The circumstances disclosed in the affidavit are such as to justify the court that made the order for the examination of defendant in acting upon an affidavit made by plaintiff’s attorney. The case falls within the principle of Oshinsky v. Gumberg (188 App. Div. 23), in that the examination is for the purpose of proving plaintiff’s ease only. The facts shown to the court indicate that the defendants, and they alone, have personal knowledge of exactly what was done in the operation upon plaintiff’s mouth. Those facts the plaintiff must prove; and as the defendants alone have the knowledge, their examination is material and necessary to the plaintiff’s case. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D. 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-koonz-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack