Court Opinion

ID: 5751944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:58:42.546016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:18.581449
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs moved for examination on the subjects appearing in paragraphs numbered 1 through 8 of their notice, of motion. The motion was granted as to paragraphs 1 and 2 and denied on the ground of irrelevancy as to the remaining six paragraphs. On this appeal the plaintiffs have abandoned 8. The defendant is a lawyer who represented both buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. He is sued for misrepresentation. The plaintiffs were the buyers. In view of the defendant’s unusual fiduciary relationship we think a more liberal view should have been taken. Order modified by granting examination also as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.