Wolf v. Doyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Doyle

10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10101

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

DecidedMay 10, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 916 (Wolf v. Doyle) 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

Wolf v. Doyle, 10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying a motion for an examination before trial unanimously reversed on the facts and the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, with costs to the appellants. The action is for professional services rendered in a matrimonial matter, in which the plaintiffs represented Mrs. Doyle and the witness represented Mr. Doyle. The complaint alleges that the husband agreed to pay the plaintiffs' fees. From the papers it appears that the plaintiffs never personally met with the husband but conducted all negotiations for the payment of their fees with the attorney sought to be examined. Upon these facts there is a sufficient showing of special circumstances to permit examination of an attorney employed by an adverse party (Matter of Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Go., 4 A D 2d 1031). If any privilege is claimed, it may be asserted on the examination. {Blum Paper Box Go. v. Kalner, 277 App. Div. 760.) Settle order fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and ’Stevens, JJ.

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

Order denying a motion for an examination before trial unanimously reversed on the facts and the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, with costs to the appellants. The action is for professional services rendered in a matrimonial matter, in which the plaintiffs represented Mrs. Doyle and the witness represented Mr. Doyle. The complaint alleges that the husband agreed to pay the plaintiffs' fees. From the papers it appears that the plaintiffs never personally met with the husband but conducted all negotiations for the payment of their fees with the attorney sought to be examined. Upon these facts there is a sufficient showing of special circumstances to permit examination of an attorney employed by an adverse party (Matter of Gottfried v. Gottfried Baking Go., 4 A D 2d 1031). If any privilege is claimed, it may be asserted on the examination. {Blum Paper Box Go. v. Kalner, 277 App. Div. 760.) Settle order fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and ’Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-doyle-nyappdiv-1960.