Andrews v. Cacchio

264 A.D. 791, 35 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4749
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 25, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 791 (Andrews v. Cacchio) 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
Andrews v. Cacchio, 264 A.D. 791, 35 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion and directing that the Division of Placement and Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor of the State of New York, at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., through an appropriate officer or employee, produce before a Trial Term of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, at such time and place as it shall be required, by service of a subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum, upon an appropriate officer or employee thereof, all books, records, cheeks, entries, and statements made in the records of the Division of Placement and Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor of the State of New York, concerning the plaintiff for the period of seven weeks beginning January 2, 1940. The motion [792]*792was made in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff through the alleged negligence of respondent. It is alleged that plaintiff had received unemployment insurance benefits and had made certain representations in connection with her physical condition. Respondent sought to have the records produced at the trial of the action brought by plaintiff against him. Order granting motion reversed on the law, without costs, and the motion denied, without costs. In so far as applicable, section 524 of the Labor Law prohibits the use of such records in the courts unless the Industrial Commissioner is a party to the action or proceeding. While the act does not disclose the object of the Legislature, it undoubtedly was to prevent exposure to public gaze of the names of applicants who are receiving benefits under the auspices of the statute and under which the employer bears the burden. This is a reasonable objective. (1 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 7; Matter of People v. Johnson & Co., 213 App. Div. 402, and cases cited.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Clapper v. Budget Oil Co.
437 N.W.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1989)
People v. Ellis
470 N.E.2d 524 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1984)
Clegg v. Bon Temps, Ltd.
114 Misc. 2d 805 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1982)
Herald Co. v. Weisenberg
115 Misc. 2d 426 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Conigliaro v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance
8 Misc. 2d 164 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)
Vazquez v. A. H. Bull Steamship Co.
91 F. Supp. 518 (S.D. New York, 1950)
Simpson v. Oil Transfer Corporation
75 F. Supp. 819 (N.D. New York, 1948)
Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Browne
269 A.D. 108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D. 791, 35 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-cacchio-nyappdiv-1942.