Case Name: ERNST et al. v. LEVI
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-01
Citations: 132 N.Y.S. 11
Docket Number: 
Parties: ERNST et al. v. LEVI.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 132
Pages: 11–14

Head Matter:
ERNST et al. v. LEVI.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 1, 1911.)
Discovert (§ 40 ) — Examination Before Trial.
While plaintiff is entitled to examine defendant before trial as to all matters relevant to the cause of action alleged and necessary to prove it, he is not entitled to a preliminary examination as to defendant’s claim, especially where defendant will be obliged to testify to' establish his affirmative defenses when he can be cross-examined.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Discovery, Cent. Dig. §§ 52, 53; Dec. Dig. § 40. ]
Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Irving L. Ernst and others, as trustees in bankruptcy of the firm of J. M. Fislce & Co., against Berthold Levi. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for defendant’s examination before trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed as modified.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
Wise & Seligsberg (Edmond E. Wise, of counsel), for appellant.
Hays, Hershfield & Wolf (Stanleigh P. Friedman, of counsel), for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
CLARKE, J.
Plaintiffs are the trustees in bankruptcy of J. M. Fiske & Co., a stock brokerage firm, and sue to recover $45,970.51, being a balance due to the said firm on account of purchases and sales of stocks and securities made by said firm for and on account, and at the request of the defendant. Plaintiffs also claim upon an account stated between themselves as the said trustees and defendant.
The answer denies all the material allegations of the complaint, sets up two separate defenses, a partial defense, and counterclaim and two separate counterclaims. The order authorizes a general examination of the defendant, requiring him to submit to an examination, and testify concerning the matters stated in the affidavits and relevant to the issues in this action.
The plaintiffs are entitled to the examination of the defendant respecting all matters relevant to the causes of action set up by them and material and necessary to prove in support thereof. We think that, so far as the defenses are concerned, plaintiffs are endeavoring to obtain a preliminary cross-examination of the defendant as to his claims, and are not endeavoring to obtain testimony material and necessary to their own cause of action for the purpose of introducing the same upon the trial. The pleadings and affidavits indicate that the defendant must go upon the stand to establish his affirmative defenses, and can be then subjected to cross-examination. We do not think that the papers make out a case justifying a preliminary cross-examination as to such matters of defense.
The order appealed from should be modified by limiting the examination to the matters set forth in the complaint and material and necessary to support the allegations thereof, and, as so modified, affirmed without costs to either party.
SCOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.