Tucker v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucker v. Weissman

61 A.D.2d 1009, 402 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10640

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1009 (Tucker v. Weissman) 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

Tucker v. Weissman, 61 A.D.2d 1009, 402 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an [1010]*1010action, inter alia, for specific performance of a partnership agreement, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 13, 1977, which, following a request for a ruling during an examination before trial, directed him to produce certain wage and hour records of employees covering a four and a half year period. Permission for the taking of the appeal is granted by Mr. Justice Shapiro (see Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff is directed to produce the records in question on March 28, 1978 at 10:00 a.m. at the place set forth in the order under review or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Since the crux of respondent’s case is his challenge to a written partnership agreement which he claims he did not sign, we believe it is both material and necessary that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of that agreement be revealed prior to trial. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an [1010]*1010action, inter alia, for specific performance of a partnership agreement, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 13, 1977, which, following a request for a ruling during an examination before trial, directed him to produce certain wage and hour records of employees covering a four and a half year period. Permission for the taking of the appeal is granted by Mr. Justice Shapiro (see Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff is directed to produce the records in question on March 28, 1978 at 10:00 a.m. at the place set forth in the order under review or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Since the crux of respondent’s case is his challenge to a written partnership agreement which he claims he did not sign, we believe it is both material and necessary that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of that agreement be revealed prior to trial. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1009, 402 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-weissman-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack