Benevento v. A. & P. Food Stores, Inc.

E.D. New York

Benevento v. A. & P. Food Stores, Inc.

26 F. Supp. 424, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3159

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1939

Docket59

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 26 F. Supp. 424 (Benevento v. A. & P. Food Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benevento v. A. & P. Food Stores, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 424, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3159 (E.D.N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Emma Benevento, in the complaint claims damages which she sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff Emma Benevento did partake of some sugar, in which there was a mixture of glass, which she had purchased from the defendant on or about July 9, 1938. The other plaintiff, George Benevento, the husband of Emma Benevento, sues for loss of services.

The plaintiffs seek to examine the defendant by its manager or employee in charge of the store where the sugar was purchased on the following matter: “Whether any other complaints or accidents arose out of the sale of the sugar from the same container or bag, together with all other facts and circumstances surrounding the said accident.”

Knowledge of the facts by the plaintiff concerning which the defendant is to be examined before the trial under Rulé 30 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, does not justify a refusal of such examination of the defendant by the plaintiff. It cannot be regarded as a valid objection that the party seeking the examination has knowledge of the facts upon which the examination is to be had. The test whether an examination before trial shall be permitted is, whether or not the testimony would be admissable upon the trial of the action.

The plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed with the examination of the defendant.

Settle order on notice.

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

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Emma Benevento, in the complaint claims damages which she sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff Emma Benevento did partake of some sugar, in which there was a mixture of glass, which she had purchased from the defendant on or about July 9, 1938. The other plaintiff, George Benevento, the husband of Emma Benevento, sues for loss of services.

The plaintiffs seek to examine the defendant by its manager or employee in charge of the store where the sugar was purchased on the following matter: “Whether any other complaints or accidents arose out of the sale of the sugar from the same container or bag, together with all other facts and circumstances surrounding the said accident.”

Knowledge of the facts by the plaintiff concerning which the defendant is to be examined before the trial under Rulé 30 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, does not justify a refusal of such examination of the defendant by the plaintiff. It cannot be regarded as a valid objection that the party seeking the examination has knowledge of the facts upon which the examination is to be had. The test whether an examination before trial shall be permitted is, whether or not the testimony would be admissable upon the trial of the action.

The plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed with the examination of the defendant.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. Supp. 424, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benevento-v-a-p-food-stores-inc-nyed-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack