Legal Opinion

Lunt v. Two Hundred Forty Goodman Street South, Inc.

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

Decided January 15, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff is entitled to have an order for the examination of the defendant corporation through its named officers and directors as to some of the matters specified in his notice of motion, since they are material and necessary in the prosecution of his action (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288). * Plaintiff is also entitled to have the order provide that defendant produce its books and papers, both to refresh the memory of witnesses and for use in evidence (Civ. Prac. Act, § 296).† Assuming that the contract, which is the basis of the action, is presumptively binding upon the defendant — it being signed…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hayden v. Gold Seal Products Co.New York Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Pallott v. Elaborated Ready Roofing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API