Legal Opinion

Shoreham Opreating Corp. v. Peyser

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVincent A. Lupiano, J.

Motion is granted as follows: The notice of examination before trial is modified by eliminating the requirement for the attendance of Gross, who acted as attorney for the defendant in connection with certain negotiations. No necessity for his examination is indicated as the *101defendant Peyser apparently was a participant in the same negotiations. It does not appear that Mr. Gross acted otherwise than as an attorney or adviser to his client; it is not shown that he was a general agent who had adequate authority to represent his principal in the making of an agreement. Thus, no reason appears why…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Augenblick v. AugenblickNew York Supreme Court · 1952

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Munsie v. Highland HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  2. In re the Estate of MoritzNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
  3. Lipin v. SalkinNew York Supreme Court · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API