Levine v. Bornstein
| Decision Date | 02 March 1959 |
| Citation | 7 A.D.2d 995,183 N.Y.S.2d 868 |
| Parties | R. H. LEVINE, as assignee of Atwater Live Poultry Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Thomas BORNSTEIN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Raphael H. Weissman, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Copal Mintz, New York City, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and MURPHY, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to recover on two judgments of the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, docketed in 1936, brought by the assignee of the judgment creditor, the appeal is (1) from an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint for appellant's refusal to answer questions upon an examination before trial held pursuant to order, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. The questions, which appellant refused to answer on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him, sought to elicit facts in support of an affirmative defense of violation of sections 274 and 275 of the Penal Law.
Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion.
KLEINFELD, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, to deny the motion, and to vacate the judgment, with the following memorandum:
As was held at the Special Term, the privilege was well taken (Bradley v. O'Hare, 2 A.D.2d 436, 156 N.Y.S.2d 533), and there is no statutory authority, in this State, to strike out a pleading for the exercise of the privilege against self incrimination. The learned Special Term erred in holding that the court had inherent power to strike out a pleading for this reason (Levine v. Moskowitz, 206 App.Div. 194, 200 N.Y.S. 597; Roseberg Holding Co. v. Berman, 214 App.Div. 146, 211 N.Y.S. 900; Nowak v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 286 App.Div. 987, 144 N.Y.S.2d 425; Segal v. Princess Ann Girl Coat, Inc., 285 App.Div. 811, 137 N.Y.S.2d 242).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Griffith
...has right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, but not at detriment to defendant's ability to develop a defense), aff'd, 7 A.D.2d 995, 183 N.Y.S.2d 868 (1959), affd, 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 921 7. See Pulawski v. Pulawski, 463 A.2d 151, 156 (R.I.1983) ("It thus appear......
-
Bramble v. Kleindienst
...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 921 (1959); Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483 (1955); Ann.......
-
Black Panther Party v. Smith
...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 921 (1959); Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483 (1955); Annot......
-
Mahne v. Mahne
...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); Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483 In Christenson th......