
    Benjamin N. Levy, Appellant, v. Coy, Hunt & Co., Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    June, 1909.)
    Attorney and client — The vocation — Admission and nature and tenure of office — Subjection to authority of court — When may not be compelled to disclose address of client.
    The attorneys for the plaintiff cannot be required by the court to disclose their client’s address after a judgment .has been entered against their client upon a verdict in favor of the defendant.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Special Term of the City Court of the city of New York.
    Samuel Wasserman, for appellant.
    Louis H. Porter, for respondent.
   MacLean, J.

The appeal of the plaintiff from the order herein, directing that the attorneys for the plaintiff serve upon the defendant’s attorney a written notice, giving the place last known to the plaintiff’s attorneys as the plaintiff’s address,” must be sustained; as it appears from the record that judgment has been entered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant and that no appeal has been taken therefrom within the time required by law. The action was ended, and the power to compel disclosure no longer existed, whatever the form of the papers in the motion or upon this appeal. Walton v. Fairchild, 4 N. Y. Supp. 552. The order must, therefore, be reversed.

Gtldebsleeve and Seabuey, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  