From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berkliff Undergarment Corp. v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1950
277 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Opinion

October 3, 1950.

Present — Glennon, J.P., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.


Order vacating notice to take the testimony before trial of a witness and the subpoena served upon him unanimously reversed, with $10 costs, and the examination directed to proceed at a time to be fixed. The mere fact that the witness is an attorney does not, in and of itself, bar his examination. He may, upon his examination, raise the question of privilege if it appears that he is being asked to disclose confidential communications between attorney and client. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Berkliff Undergarment Corp. v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1950
277 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)
Case details for

Berkliff Undergarment Corp. v. Weissman

Case Details

Full title:BERKLIFF UNDERGARMENT CORP., Respondent, v. K. BERNARD WEISSMAN et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 3, 1950

Citations

277 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Citing Cases

Tharaud v. James Bros. Realty Co., Inc.

This proposal is not satisfactory to the movants. It does not clearly appear to me that the examination asked…

Mtr. of Circle Floor Co. v. Siltan Corp.

The mere fact that a prospective witness is an attorney for one of the parties in a controversy does not bar…