From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meisel v. Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1940
260 App. Div. 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)

Opinion

October 21, 1940.


Action to recover compensation for services of the plaintiff as sales manager. Order granting a discovery and inspection modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words "and Spielman Chevrolet Corp.," and inserting after "October, 1938," the following: "and Spielman Chevrolet Corp., for the term commencing January, 1935, and ending October, 1938." As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, the examination to proceed on five days' notice. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery and inspection ( Clynne v. Scharf Bros. Sons, Inc., 213 App. Div. 286, 288) only in reference to those causes of action where his employment contract provided that he should share in profits or where his compensation was contingent upon profits. ( Clynne v. Scharf Bros. Sons, Inc., supra; Thomas v. Waite Co., 113 App. Div. 494; Lockwood v. Bedell Co., 178 id. 695; Gemson v. Perreault, 201 id. 649; Burns v. Lipson, 204 id. 643; Fey v. Wisser, 206 id. 520.) The modification directed eliminates discovery and inspection as to the causes pleaded in which profits are not thus involved. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 939.]


Summaries of

Meisel v. Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1940
260 App. Div. 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
Case details for

Meisel v. Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL W. MEISEL, Respondent, v. SPIELMAN MOTOR SALES CO., INC., and…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 1940

Citations

260 App. Div. 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)

Citing Cases

Haffenberg v. Wendling

Documents to be subject to inspection must be evidence themselves * * *." ( People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme…