Abbott v. South Buffalo Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abbott v. South Buffalo Railroad

28 A.D.2d 1084, 285 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1084 (Abbott v. South Buffalo Railroad) 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

Abbott v. South Buffalo Railroad, 28 A.D.2d 1084, 285 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion Special Term should have denied so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought pretrial examination of the members of the train crew of defendant railroad company separate and apart from each other. The record contains statements taken by plaintiff’s representative shortly after the accident from such of these witnesses as were in a position to see the occurrence. Therefore we see no necessity for the requested direction. We understand from the oral argument that plaintiff has abandoned so much of her application as sought to exclude a claim representative of the defendant railroad company from the pretrial examination. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion Special Term should have denied so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought pretrial examination of the members of the train crew of defendant railroad company separate and apart from each other. The record contains statements taken by plaintiff’s representative shortly after the accident from such of these witnesses as were in a position to see the occurrence. Therefore we see no necessity for the requested direction. We understand from the oral argument that plaintiff has abandoned so much of her application as sought to exclude a claim representative of the defendant railroad company from the pretrial examination. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1084, 285 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-v-south-buffalo-railroad-nyappdiv-1967.