Chambers v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chambers v. State

25 A.D.2d 792, 269 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383

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

DecidedApril 29, 1966

DocketClaim No. 39109

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 792 (Chambers v. State) 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

Chambers v. State, 25 A.D.2d 792, 269 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims which granted an examination before trial of the State, but which elaimants-appellants claim was too restrictive. Since this appeal was taken there has been an examination before trial at which the State produced all of the written records and information in its possession as demanded by the appellants. This court had previously dismissed this appeal upon stipulation of the parties, but then vacated the dismissal when it appeared that the State could not produce a witness specified in the aforesaid stipulation because the witnesses was no longer employed by the State. The State now says in its brief on appeal that it has no employee with knowledge similar to that of the specified employee. In view of the fact that it now appears without contradiction, that the information sought by the appellants has been disclosed by the respondent to the best of its ability, the appeal is dismissed as moot, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims which granted an examination before trial of the State, but which elaimants-appellants claim was too restrictive. Since this appeal was taken there has been an examination before trial at which the State produced all of the written records and information in its possession as demanded by the appellants. This court had previously dismissed this appeal upon stipulation of the parties, but then vacated the dismissal when it appeared that the State could not produce a witness specified in the aforesaid stipulation because the witnesses was no longer employed by the State. The State now says in its brief on appeal that it has no employee with knowledge similar to that of the specified employee. In view of the fact that it now appears without contradiction, that the information sought by the appellants has been disclosed by the respondent to the best of its ability, the appeal is dismissed as moot, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 792, 269 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack