Barbarita v. Gannett Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barbarita v. Gannett Co.

58 A.D.2d 821, 396 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12995

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 821 (Barbarita v. Gannett Co.) 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

Barbarita v. Gannett Co., 58 A.D.2d 821, 396 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated March 24, 1977, which denied his motion to "suppress” a certain change which an employee of defendant Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc., made in his deposition or, in the alternative, to continue the deposition of the said employee. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that plaintiff may continue the deposition of Joseph M. Ungaro, limited to the question as to which the answer was changed. The continued deposition shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such time and place as the parties may agree. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff-appellant should be permitted to continue the deposition to the limited extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated March 24, 1977, which denied his motion to "suppress” a certain change which an employee of defendant Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc., made in his deposition or, in the alternative, to continue the deposition of the said employee. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that plaintiff may continue the deposition of Joseph M. Ungaro, limited to the question as to which the answer was changed. The continued deposition shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such time and place as the parties may agree. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff-appellant should be permitted to continue the deposition to the limited extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 821, 396 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbarita-v-gannett-co-nyappdiv-1977.