Case Name: Marc A. Brummer, Respondent, v. Jacob Cohen, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-01
Citations: 47 A.D. 470
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marc A. Brummer, Respondent, v. Jacob Cohen, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Marc A. Brummer, Respondent, v. Jacob Cohen, Appellant.
Inspection of boohs and papers — not allowed merely to ascertain damages. '
An inspection of a defendant’s, books and papers will not be ordered for the sole purpose of enabling the plaintiff to state in his complaint the amount of damages claimed by him.
Appeal by the defendant, Jacob Cohen, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the- Kings, County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 1st day of December, 1899, as resettled by an order entered in said blerk’s office on the 2d day of December, 1899, directing him to allow an inspection of his¡ books, by the plaintiff.
Benno loewy, for the appellant.
Millard M. Ellison [Sol. M. Stroock with him on the brief], for 'the respondent.'

Opinion:
Hirschberg, J.:
By the order appealed' from the defendant was required to submit to an inspection of Ids books for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to frame his complaint. In the petition on which the order was granted the plaintiff státes that the action is brought, to recover moneys due as commissions upon sales of defendant's goods, and that the inspection is material, in the words of the petition, " in order to enable the plaintiff to properly determine the amount due to him from the defendant." Aside from the question of amount the moving papers show that the plaintiff is in possession of all the facts requisite to the statement of his cause of action. Under the circumstances an order for inspection should not be made before issue joined, merely to enable the plaintiff to insert the ad datnnum, in his complaint. (Tayler v. American Ribbon Co., 38 App. Div. 144.) As the court said in the case cited, " There is no rule of pleading requiring that to be stated with accuracy. The plaintiff may name an arbitrary amount and recover within it."
The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
All concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.