Catapano v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catapano v. Shapiro

6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1054 (Catapano v. Shapiro) 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

Catapano v. Shapiro, 6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellants’ motion to conduct an examination before trial with the aid of a tape recorder. Order modified (1) by striking everything from said order following the words in the next to last ordering [1055]*1055paragraph “by shorthand or stenotype” and (2) by substituting therefor the following “or by the use of a tape recording machine”. As thus modified, order, insofar as appeal is taken, affirmed, without costs. Inasmuch as the transcript of an examination before trial must be read by or to the person examined and subscribed by him (Civ. Prac. Act, § 302), the proposed means of making the initial record, from which a typed or written transcript must be made, could prove suitable, and not contrary to rule 129 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Gotthelf v. Hillcrest Lbr. Co., 280 App. Div. 668.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellants’ motion to conduct an examination before trial with the aid of a tape recorder. Order modified (1) by striking everything from said order following the words in the next to last ordering [1055]*1055paragraph “by shorthand or stenotype” and (2) by substituting therefor the following “or by the use of a tape recording machine”. As thus modified, order, insofar as appeal is taken, affirmed, without costs. Inasmuch as the transcript of an examination before trial must be read by or to the person examined and subscribed by him (Civ. Prac. Act, § 302), the proposed means of making the initial record, from which a typed or written transcript must be made, could prove suitable, and not contrary to rule 129 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Gotthelf v. Hillcrest Lbr. Co., 280 App. Div. 668.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catapano-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack