Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc.

63 A.D.2d 853, 406 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 26, 1978
DocketAppeal No. 2
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 853 (Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc.) 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
Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 853, 406 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order denying its application for an order requiring Bernard Cohen to be examined before trial as an officer of defendant corporation and for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 by reason of defendant’s failure to produce Cohen for examination after receipt of plaintiff’s notice. Defendant responded that Cohen was no longer an officer, director or employee of the corporation, and that his present whereabouts are unknown. Special Term denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s motion for a protective order, without costs. Plaintiff’s papers establish that it is entitled to examine Cohen as an officer of the defendant corporation under CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) (see Essley Shirt Co. v Lybrand, 286 App Div 808), and also alleged sufficient special circumstances to warrant Cohen’s examination as a non-party witness (CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [4]), if he can be located and served with a subpoena. However, absent any evidence that Cohen is within the control of defendant corporation, Special Term properly denied the application for sanctions at this time. The order is modified, however, to grant plaintiff leave to renew upon a showing that Cohen is under the control of defendant and by striking that portion of the order which grants defendants’ application for a protective order. (Appeals from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—protective order, etc.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.

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

Related

Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Occidental Gems, Inc.
41 A.D.3d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.2d 853, 406 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/two-clinton-square-corp-v-computerized-recovery-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1978.