Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Kidansky v. Schweickart

Kidansky v. Schweickart, 35 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1970-09-17
Topic
general

*659Concur—• Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kidansky v. Schweickart. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
KIDANSKY v. SCHWEICKART,35 A.D.2d 658[1st Dept 1970]
MORTON KIDANSKY et al., Respondents, v. WINFIELD H. SCHWEICKART et al.,
Individually and as General Partners of and Persons Doing Business Under the
Name of SCHWEICKART CO., et al., Appellants.
SCHWEICKART CO., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ELDREDGE CO.,
INC., Third-Party Defendant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
September 17, 1970
Order entered August 13, 1969, modified on the law to provide that all papers prepared and used by plaintiffs while in defendant's employ and located on their premises be produced and inquiry as to theirPage 659creation and use be allowed, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. It appears that a principal issue in this action for defamation is whether certain papers used by plaintiffs in the course of their employment by defendants were records belonging to plaintiffs or the property of defendants. In an examination before trial of plaintiffs by defendants the production of all papers used by plaintiffs and retained by them was ordered. Upon objection Special Term ruled that plaintiffs' personal customer records were their own property and precluded inquiry as to them. However, whether any particular papers fall into the category of a personal record is an issue in the case. Obviously, this is not to be determined by the interested parties, nor even by the court in advance of the facts as to how the specific paper was prepared, the use to which it was to be put, and the like. Defendants are entitled to develop these facts on the examination and it obviously cannot be done in the absence of production of the papers and questioning in regard to them. Whether or not they become admissible at the trial may largely depend on the facts so elicited. If the examination seeks to go beyond proper limits as to any document, Special Term by ruling on objections can keep it within bounds.

Concur — Capozzoli, J.P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.