50 New Walden, Inc. v. McKaig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

50 New Walden, Inc. v. McKaig

19 A.D.2d 584, 240 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 24, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 584 (50 New Walden, Inc. v. McKaig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

50 New Walden, Inc. v. McKaig, 19 A.D.2d 584, 240 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs [585]*585and disbursements and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The motion for discovery and inspection should have been granted in the exercise of sound discretion. Special Term denied the motion on the ground that the documents to be produced and examined included opinions as to the cause of the collapse of a building. Such opinion evidence, Special Term said, would not be admissible under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. Possible inadmissibility alone would not necessarily preclude the examination. (Beyer v. Keller, 11 A D 2d 426; O’Grady v. Burr, 2 A D 2d 712.) If specific objections are made during the examination or at trial, either Special Term or the Trial Judge, as the ease may be, will be able to determine the extent of discovery during the examination, or to pass upon admissibility during the trial. (De Vito v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 32 Misc 2d 495, affd. 3 A D 2d 692.) The order should be reversed and the motion granted. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs [585]*585and disbursements and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The motion for discovery and inspection should have been granted in the exercise of sound discretion. Special Term denied the motion on the ground that the documents to be produced and examined included opinions as to the cause of the collapse of a building. Such opinion evidence, Special Term said, would not be admissible under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. Possible inadmissibility alone would not necessarily preclude the examination. (Beyer v. Keller, 11 A D 2d 426; O’Grady v. Burr, 2 A D 2d 712.) If specific objections are made during the examination or at trial, either Special Term or the Trial Judge, as the ease may be, will be able to determine the extent of discovery during the examination, or to pass upon admissibility during the trial. (De Vito v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 32 Misc 2d 495, affd. 3 A D 2d 692.) The order should be reversed and the motion granted. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 584, 240 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/50-new-walden-inc-v-mckaig-nyappdiv-1963.