Spring v. Moncrieff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spring v. Moncrieff

285 A.D. 1127, 140 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863

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

DecidedMay 10, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 1127 (Spring v. Moncrieff) 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

Spring v. Moncrieff, 285 A.D. 1127, 140 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In the exercise of discretion the broad and all-encompassing subpoena duces tecum should at this time be vacated (Matter of Sun-Ray CloaJc Co., 256 App. Div. 620; Carlisle v. Bennett, 268 N. T. 212, 217). Upon the hearing of the motion the proper disposition thereof may require the issuance of another subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of all or some of the many papers demanded pursuant to the subpoena under attack. Orderly and feasible procedure, however, would indicate that the propriety and necessity of issuing such a subpoena duces tecum should rest in the first instance in the sound discretion of the justice hearing the motion; and that he also should fix the scope of the subpoena. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Bastow and Botein, JJ.

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

In the exercise of discretion the broad and all-encompassing subpoena duces tecum should at this time be vacated (Matter of Sun-Ray CloaJc Co., 256 App. Div. 620; Carlisle v. Bennett, 268 N. T. 212, 217). Upon the hearing of the motion the proper disposition thereof may require the issuance of another subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of all or some of the many papers demanded pursuant to the subpoena under attack. Orderly and feasible procedure, however, would indicate that the propriety and necessity of issuing such a subpoena duces tecum should rest in the first instance in the sound discretion of the justice hearing the motion; and that he also should fix the scope of the subpoena. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Bastow and Botein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1127, 140 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spring-v-moncrieff-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack