Levine v. Bornstein
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES S. BROWN, Jr. |
| Citation | 174 N.Y.S.2d 574,13 Misc.2d 161 |
| Parties | R. H. LEVINE, as Assignee of Atwater Live Poultry Co. Inc. v. Thomas BORNSTEIN. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1958 |
Page 574
v.
Thomas BORNSTEIN.
Page 575
[13 Misc.2d 162] Fred Goldenberg, Brooklyn, for plaintiff.
Copal Mintz, New York City, for defendant.
JAMES S. BROWN, Jr., Justice.
Two judgments were obtained against the defendant herein on December 3, 1936, and it would appear that these judgments were assigned to the plaintiff on November 30, 1956, four days before their twenty-year life expired; and that the plaintiff promptly commenced this action against the defendant on December 3, 1956 by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Sheriff of the County of New York.
In his answer the defendant alleges as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff has been and still is engaged 'in the business and practice of furnishing attorneys or counsel to render legal services in the collection of judgments and represented and advertised that he, in conjunction with others, owned, conducted and maintained a law and collection office wherein the legal services necessary to effect collection of judgments were rendered, and he solicited the retainer of himself to render, through himself and such attorney or attorneys as he may furnish, the legal services necessary to effect collection of judgments,' and that the plaintiff 'engaged directly or indirectly in the business of collection and adjustment of claims, including judgments, and solicited claims, demands and causes of action, including judgments, with the intent and for the
Page 576
purpose of bringing actions or proceedings thereon, and bought and took assignments of such claims including judgments and solicited claims and demands, and causes of action, with the said intent and for said purpose,' and that such assignments of these judgments were therefore unlawful and illegal.The defendant obviously has reference to sections 274 and 275 of the Penal Law which make it a misdemeanor for persons under certain circumstances to 'solicit, buy or take' a chose in action 'for the purpose of bringing an action thereon.'
[13 Misc.2d 163] By orders of this Court obtained by the defendant, the plaintiff was directed to submit to examination before trial upon the affirmative defense. Plaintiff submitted to the examination but refused to answer questions which sought to elicit information pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the assignments and the sufficiency and validity thereof. Such refusal was on the ground that such questions sought to elicit information which would have the tendency and objective to incriminate and degrade him. Thus he claimed privilege under the New York Constitution, Article I, section 6, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The defendant now moves for an order pursuant to sections 299 and 405 of the Civil Practice Act, and also in the exercise of the court's inherent power, striking the complaint and dismissing the action for the plaintiff's deliberate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manning Engineering, Inc. v. Hudson County Park Commission
...N.J. 53, 58-59, 328 A.2d 225 (1974) (dictum); Christensen v. Christensen, 281 Minn. 517, 162 N.W.2d 194, 204 (1968); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574, aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 921 (1958); Annot., 4 A.L.R.3d 545 10 In In re Daley, supra, the court......
-
Griffith v. Griffith, No. 2890.
...to answer questions, the answers to which may substantially aid defendants or even establish a complete defense."); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (Sup.Ct.1958) (plaintiff has right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, but not at detriment to defendant's ability t......
-
Bramble v. Kleindienst, No. C-4549.
...See Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320, 4 A.L.R.3d 539 (Fla.1964); Lund v. Lund, 161 So.2d 873 (Fla.App.1964); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (S.Ct., Kings Co. 1958); aff'd 7 A.D.2d 995, 183 N.Y.S. 2d 868 (2d Dept.), aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 9......
-
Mahne v. Mahne
...subjected to some lesser noncriminal sanction. See Christenson v. Christenson, 281 Minn. 507, 162 N.W.2d 194 (1968); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (Sup.Ct.1958), aff'd, 7 A.D.2d 995, 183 N.Y.S.2d 868, aff'd, 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 921 (1959); Fran......
-
Manning Engineering, Inc. v. Hudson County Park Commission
...N.J. 53, 58-59, 328 A.2d 225 (1974) (dictum); Christensen v. Christensen, 281 Minn. 517, 162 N.W.2d 194, 204 (1968); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574, aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 921 (1958); Annot., 4 A.L.R.3d 545 10 In In re Daley, supra, the court......
-
Griffith v. Griffith, No. 2890.
...to answer questions, the answers to which may substantially aid defendants or even establish a complete defense."); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (Sup.Ct.1958) (plaintiff has right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, but not at detriment to defendant's ability t......
-
Bramble v. Kleindienst, No. C-4549.
...See Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320, 4 A.L.R.3d 539 (Fla.1964); Lund v. Lund, 161 So.2d 873 (Fla.App.1964); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (S.Ct., Kings Co. 1958); aff'd 7 A.D.2d 995, 183 N.Y.S. 2d 868 (2d Dept.), aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 9......
-
Black Panther Party v. Smith, No. 80-1302
...See Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320, 4 A.L.R.3d 539 (Fla.1964); Lund v. Lund, 161 So.2d 873 (Fla.App.1964); Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (S.Ct., Kings Co. 1958); aff'd 7 A.D.2d 995, 183 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2d Dept.), aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 92......
-
Privileges
...Thus, matter that is privileged need not be divulged, whether sought at the discovery phase, or at trial. [ Levine v. Bornstein , 13 Misc2d 161, 174 NYS2d 574 (Sup Ct Kings Co 1958), aff’d, 7 AD2d 995 (2d Dept 1959), aff’d, 6 NY2d 892, 190 NYS2d 702 (1959) (Fifth Amendment privilege); Buckl......