Legal Opinion
Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. Friedman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 17, 1976PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: A party will not be required to produce income tax returns in a particular action unless the record presents a strong necessity for such disclosure in order for the party to prove its cause of action or defense (Gottlieb v Friedman, 42 AD2d 965; Glenmark, Inc. v Carity, 22 AD2d 680; O’Grady v Burr, 2 AD2d 712; 7 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 42.48; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.10). Where a strong showing of necessity is established, however, a party will be required…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Glenmark, Inc. v. CarityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Gilligan v. LeponeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Coleman v. MyersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Gottlieb v. FriedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- O'Grady v. BurrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
3Cited by15 opinions
- Briton v. Knott Hotels Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- State v. SkibinskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Supama Coal Sales Co. v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Berger v. Fete Cab Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Mamunes v. SzczepanskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.