Busshart v. Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Busshart v. Park

112 A.D.2d 787, 492 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56030

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 787 (Busshart v. Park) 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

Busshart v. Park, 112 A.D.2d 787, 492 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying the motion for a protective order and directing that defendant Parks be deposed in this medical malpractice action. While CPLR 4501 does not require a witness to give an answer which will tend to accuse himself of a crime or to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture, it does not excuse a party from responding to relevant questions to establish "that he owes a debt or is otherwise subject to a civil suit.”

Since the possible sanction flowing from defendant’s disciplinary investigation does not constitute a "penalty or forfeiture” (see, Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 NY2d 506; Matter of Greco v Board of Examiners, 91 AD2d 1108, affd 60 NY2d 709; Matter of Miles v Nyquist, 60 AD2d 133), Special Term properly directed that he participate in an examination before trial. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — stay deposition.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying the motion for a protective order and directing that defendant Parks be deposed in this medical malpractice action. While CPLR 4501 does not require a witness to give an answer which will tend to accuse himself of a crime or to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture, it does not excuse a party from responding to relevant questions to establish "that he owes a debt or is otherwise subject to a civil suit.”

Since the possible sanction flowing from defendant’s disciplinary investigation does not constitute a "penalty or forfeiture” (see, Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 NY2d 506; Matter of Greco v Board of Examiners, 91 AD2d 1108, affd 60 NY2d 709; Matter of Miles v Nyquist, 60 AD2d 133), Special Term properly directed that he participate in an examination before trial. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — stay deposition.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 787, 492 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busshart-v-park-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack