Zeif v. Zeif
| Decision Date | 17 December 1968 |
| Citation | 31 A.D.2d 625,295 N.Y.S.2d 503 |
| Parties | Samuel M. ZEIF, as Director of Andy Associates, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William ZEIF and Abraham M. Schneider, individually and as officers and directors of Andy Associates, Inc., and Andy Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. Halberstam, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
A. M. Inselman, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before STEUER, J.P., and CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN and McNALLY, JJ.
Order entered July 16, 1968, denying defendants' motion for a protective order unanimously affirmed with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent.
Notice of examination was served December 19, 1967. Defendants obtained several adjournments and it was agreed that examination would be deferred until plaintiff served his bill of particulars. Following the services, the parties were unable to agree upon a date for examination. Plaintiff then served a new motion rescheduling the examination for June 17, 1968. It is in regard to this notice that defendants seek a protective order. We agree with Special Term that the June notice merely fixed a date for examination and that the viable notice was that of December 19. Objections to that notice were waived by the failure to make timely application for a protective order (Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 317, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596). Were it not for this waiver, which renders the notice unassailable in all its features, we would not require the production of certain documents, notably income tax returns, and would probably restrict the examination in other respects. Consequently the current holding is not to be deemed a precedent for sanctioning the production or inspection of such papers where the party to be examined is in a position to contest.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...or the item is discoverable unless privileged (Mtr. of Handel v. Handel, 26 N.Y.2d 853, 309 N.Y.S.2d 599, 258 N.E.2d 94; Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503; Coffey v. Orbachs, 22 A.D.2d 317, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596; Salmonsen v. Brown, 62 Misc.2d 623, 309 N.Y.S.2d 535; Weisgold v. Kiame......
-
Green v. Smith
...its own initative may act to prevent improper use of such devices. Each of the cases cited by the Handel court (Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503 (1st Dept., 1968); Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 317, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596 (1st Dept., 1964)) dealt with protective orders sought pu......
-
Greuling v. Breakey
...not require the production of certain documents . . . and would probably restrict the examination in other respects' Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 626, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503, 504. In Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., supra, we presumed that the notice for discovery was intended to be impliedly limited by ......
-
Handel v. Handel
...failed to move for a protective order under CPLR 3122 or to show cause why his failure to so move was excusable (Zeif v. Zeif, 31 A.D.2d 625, 295 N.Y.S.2d 503; Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 317, 319--320, 254 N.Y.S.2d 596), and neither the Appellate Division nor the Family Court exerci......