Case ID: misc_170/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Lapidus, Respondent, v. Capital Neon Sign Corp., Appellant, and Le Roy M. Shear, Defendant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 10, 1939.
    
      Kamer & Kamer [Frank Kamer of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Emma Haber, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The mere naming of a person as managing agent of a corporation, where the answering affidavit denies control over the person sought to be examined, is insufficient for the granting of an order to examine the named person as such agent.

Judgment and orders reversed, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice to renewal of application for examination of appellant.

All concur. Present — Hammer, Shientag and Noonan, JJ.