From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Katz v. Memoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

November 6, 1967


Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 2, 1966, modified by (1) amending the decretal paragraph therein so that the denial of defendants' motion for discovery and inspection of plaintiff's income tax returns be limited to the return for the year 1960 and that the motion is granted as to the returns for the years 1961 through 1965, inclusive. Within 10 days after entry of the order hereon plaintiff shall furnish to defendants a true and complete copy of each of said returns for the years 1961 through 1965, inclusive, for discovery and inspection; if plaintiff be unable to comply with this direction as to any or all of said returns, he shall, within the same 10-day period, authorize the Internal Revenue Service to furnish to defendants a copy of each of said returns which he himself cannot furnish, making such appearance at the office of the Internal Revenue Service, executing such papers and advancing such fees as may be necessary for the purpose; and defendants shall reimburse plaintiff for the necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with securing copies of the returns from the Internal Revenue Service. As so modified, order affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. In this personal injury action plaintiff is a self-employed certified public accountant whose bill of particulars asserts a $30,000 loss of earnings from the time of the accident in July 1962 to June 1965. Plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion asserts that the claim is only for a "potential" loss of earnings. However, the bill of particulars does not contain this limitation. The circumstances present here warrant discovery and inspection of plaintiff's income tax returns for the years he has put in issue (1962 through 1965) and also for one year prior thereto (1961) so that a basis of comparison can be achieved. (See, Elmer v. Byrd, 32 Misc.2d 408, affd. 16 A.D.2d 744; Altman v. City of New York, 46 Misc.2d 133.) Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Katz v. Memoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Katz v. Memoli

Case Details

Full title:ARNOLD M. KATZ, Respondent, v. FRANK MEMOLI et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 6, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Ruby v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corporation.

The tax returns offer a basis of comparison. Katz v. Memoli, 28 A.D.2d 1128. The plaintiff has the burden of…

Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp.

Before: Ellerin, J. P., "Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ. Plaintiffs claim that defendants caused…