Case Name: O'GORMAN v. O'GORMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12-26
Citations: 36 N.Y.S. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’GORMAN v. O’GORMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 36
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
O’GORMAN v. O’GORMAN.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
December 26, 1895.
Discovery—Inspection of Books.
On a motion for the inspection of plaintiff's bank books, where no good reason is shown why the books should not be inspected, an order that plaintiff deliver to defendant sworn copies of the books, or a written authorization to the banks to permit defendant to take copies thereof, will-not, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from special term, Oswego county.
Action by Elizabeth A. O’Gorman against James E. O’Gorman. From an order granting an inspection of plaintiff’s bank books, she-appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ_
D. P. Lester, for appellant.
W. G. Robinson, for respondent.

Opinion:
HARDIN, P. J.
There was some conflict in the affidavits used at the special term, and the judge presiding has resolved the conflict in favor of the petitioner. It appears that the plaintiff had an account in the respective banks mentioned in the petition, and that the pass books used in connection with the account have been returned to the savings banks, and that the banks have a custom of retaining pass books after closing accounts with a customer, and are disinclined to allow inspection of such pass books without the consent of the party in whose favor they were made while the account was current. The bank officers' affidavits furnish no good reason why the pass books should not be inspected. It is apparent from the affidavit of the plaintiff that she has no serious or important objection to the inspection of the pass books, or to a copy being delivered thereof. The special term was called upon, under all the proofs before it, to exercise its discretion in respect to whether an inspection should be ordered. We are not prepared to say that the special term exceeded its discretion in the premises. Sibley v. Publishing Co., 80 Hun, 561, 30 N. Y. Supp. 604; Finlay v. Chapman, 119 N. Y. 404, 23 N. E. 740. We think the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.