Markevich v. Royal Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Peter Markevich, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of March, 1914, requiring plaintiff’s attorneys within three days to disclose plaintiff’s address to defendant’s • attorneys, and staying of proceedings meanwhile.
1Per curiam
Although not statutory, the power to direct the disclosure of the client’s residence or address has long been recognized. (Ninety-nine Plaintiffs v. Vanderbilt, 4 Duer, 632; Post v. Scheider, 13 N. Y. Supp. 396; Matter of Malcom, 129 App. Div. 226.) Not only is the address necessary for personal service of court orders, but plaintiff’s residence may require him to give security for costs (Code Civ. Proc. § 3268), fixes the county of trial (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 984, 985) and (in certain actions against a foreign corporation) may be determinative of the court’s jurisdiction (Code Civ. Proc. §…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re TrainorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Post v. ScheiderNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- In re MalcomAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dike v. DikeWashington Supreme Court · 1968
- In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Jacqueline F.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Sapp v. WongHawaii Supreme Court · 1980
- Falkenhainer v. FalkenhainerNew York Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re IllidgeOregon Supreme Court · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.