From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Copeland Coating v. Royal Athletic Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 16, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, the provision thereof which denied that branch of the motion which was to strike the plaintiff's demand for tax returns is vacated, and that branch of the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff failed to make a showing of necessity for the disclosure of the defendants' tax returns or that the information sought was unavailable from other sources (see, Zarr v Riccio, 180 A.D.2d 734; Consentino v Schwartz, 155 A.D.2d 640). Its remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Copeland Coating v. Royal Athletic Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Copeland Coating v. Royal Athletic Industries

Case Details

Full title:COPELAND COATING CO., INC., Respondent-Appellant, v. ROYAL ATHLETIC…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Wegweiser v. Wegweiser

We conclude that the defendant sufficiently raised a question of fact as to whether his signature on the note…