From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Murjani v. Ming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 14, 1989
155 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 14, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).


Petitioner demonstrated that he employed respondent as his personal secretary in New York, had her open an account in her name to pay his business expenses in New York, and that there had likely been unauthorized activity with respect to the account prior to respondent's sudden departure from employment. Petitioner has been unable to obtain records of the account, of which he was, without contradiction, beneficial owner. Disclosure of such limited documentary material, in order to enable petitioner to frame a complaint, is well within the ambit of preaction disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) where petitioner has demonstrated he likely has causes of action against respondent (Matter of Simpson [Traum], 63 A.D.2d 583 [1st Dept]; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶¶ 3012.13, 3012.14).

Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Murjani v. Ming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 14, 1989
155 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Murjani v. Ming

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MOHAN B. MURJANI, Respondent, v. DIANE MING, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 52

Citing Cases

Pub. Rel. Socy. v. Rd. Runner High Speed Online

This rule is also available to obtain facts not within the petitioner's knowledge in order to determine the…

Wien & Malkin, L. L. P. v. Wichman

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.). The court properly exercised its…