Property · MBE-tested
E. W. Holmes Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Switzerland General Insurance Company of Zurich, Respondent
234 A.D. 734·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1931·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
E. W. Holmes Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Switzerland General Insurance Company of Zurich, Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on August 24, 1931, granting defendant’s motion for a discovery and inspection of plaintiff’s books and records in action for work, labor and services.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion. Present — Finch, P. J., MeAvoy, Martin, O’Malley and Townley, JJ.; Finch, P. J., and McAvoy, J., dissent.
[MAJORITY — Finch, P. J.]
Finch, P. J.
(dissenting). The items set forth in the order indicate that they are pertinent to the issues to be tried. No bad faith is shown in connection with the present application. The mere fact that as the result of the discovery and inspection the defendant will be better prepared to meet the issues should not be used to defeat the relief sought. Indeed it should predispose to grant the application. The order appealed from should be affirmed. McAvoy, J., concurs.