Bottalico v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bottalico v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

33 A.D.2d 756, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2581

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 756 (Bottalico v. Seaboard Coast Line 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

Bottalico v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 33 A.D.2d 756, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered May 20, 1969, denying defendant’s motion for a protective order, unanimously modified on the facts and the law, without costs or disbursements, to provide that the examination of defendant’s employees shall be in Jacksonville, Florida, and, at the election of plaintiffs, shall be by written interrogatories or open commission. If plaintiffs elect to examine by open commission, the parties shall pay their respective expenses, which shall be taxed as costs by the prevailing party. Otherwise the order is affirmed. The requirement that witnesses travel a thousand miles is onerous and likely unnecessary. If the witnesses should come to New York for the trial or for any reason prior thereto, plaintiffs shall be advised beforehand and accorded the opportunity of conducting the examination directed. (See Pakter v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Winds v. Hydropress, 279 App. Div. 1005.) Defendant’s brief offers to submit the witnesses for examination in New York City about one week before trial. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, Markewich and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered May 20, 1969, denying defendant’s motion for a protective order, unanimously modified on the facts and the law, without costs or disbursements, to provide that the examination of defendant’s employees shall be in Jacksonville, Florida, and, at the election of plaintiffs, shall be by written interrogatories or open commission. If plaintiffs elect to examine by open commission, the parties shall pay their respective expenses, which shall be taxed as costs by the prevailing party. Otherwise the order is affirmed. The requirement that witnesses travel a thousand miles is onerous and likely unnecessary. If the witnesses should come to New York for the trial or for any reason prior thereto, plaintiffs shall be advised beforehand and accorded the opportunity of conducting the examination directed. (See Pakter v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Piel v. Lilly & Co., 19 A D 2d 810; Winds v. Hydropress, 279 App. Div. 1005.) Defendant’s brief offers to submit the witnesses for examination in New York City about one week before trial. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, Markewich and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 756, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bottalico-v-seaboard-coast-line-railroad-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack