Case Name: Rebecca Rosen, Respondent, v. Martin Simons and Max Simons, Copartners Trading under the Style of Martin Simons & Son, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-10
Citations: 82 Misc. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rebecca Rosen, Respondent, v. Martin Simons and Max Simons, Copartners Trading under the Style of Martin Simons & Son, Appellants.
Judges: Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
Rebecca Rosen, Respondent, v. Martin Simons and Max Simons, Copartners Trading under the Style of Martin Simons & Son, Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
October, 1913.)
Discovery and inspection — order for inspection — action to recover value of pledge stolen from defendants’ vault.
In an action to recover the value of a pledge alleged to have been stolen from defendants’ vault wherein they kept like pledges, plaintiff will be granted an order for the inspection] under certain restrictions, of said vault.
Appeal by defendants from an order of the City Court of the city of New York permitting an inspection by the plaintiff of the vault of defendants by a mason and an electrician, and allowing a photographer to take photographs of such vault subject to certain restrictions and regulations imposed by the court.
Moss, Laimbeer, Marcus & Weis (Charles L. Hoffman, Samuel Marcus and Henry A. Friedman), of counsel), for appellants.
Henry L. Franklin, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
The action is brought by a pledgor to recover the value of a pledge alleged to have been stolen by burglars from defendants' vault wherein they kept such pledges.
Plaintiff claims that the loss was caused through the negligence of defendants.
The case seems to be one in which an inspection as provided in section 803 of the Code is appropriate. See Chojnacki v. Interborough R. T. Co., 76 Misc. Rep. 427; Donoghue v. Callanan, 152 App. Div. 162; Beyer v. Transit D. Co., 139 id. 724.
The ultimate merits of the entire case on debatable questions of law urged by the defendants should not be decided on this motion. There seems, however, absolutely no reason why photographs of the vault should be taken.
The order should, therefore, be modified by permitting one inspection of the interior and exterior of the vault, not to exceed two hours, at some time convenient to defendants, which can, no doubt, be agreed-upon between the respective counsel, by the electrician and mason named in the order, in the presence of plaintiff's counsel. The order may also provide that there shall be no disturbance of the structure of the vault nor of any apparatus connected with it. As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
Settle order on-notice.
Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.
Order modified, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.