After having the opportunity to review the financial documents presented at the depositions of plaintiff's accountant and president, and subsequently having received additional documents that were used in the preparation of plaintiff's tax returns, defendant makes no showing of any "overriding necessity" such as might warrant production of plaintiff's tax returns (Matthews Indus. Piping Co. v Mobil Oil Corp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
XAMAKA, INC. v. 166 EAST 61ST STREET CORPORATION
277 A.D.2d 35 (2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 145
XAMAKA, INC., Respondent, v. 166 EAST 61ST STREET CORPORATION, Sued Herein as 166 EAST 61ST STREET ASSOCIATES, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Defendants, et al., Third-Party Defendants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided November 9, 2000.
Decided November 9, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
