Cohen v. Zarou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Zarou

71 A.D.2d 911, 419 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 911 (Cohen v. Zarou) 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

Cohen v. Zarou, 71 A.D.2d 911, 419 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 15, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying their motion for an order pursuant to CPLR article 31 requiring the defendant hospital to appear for an examination before trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and, upon reargument, motion granted. In our opinion plaintiffs are entitled to the production for oral examination of an individual with knowledge-of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the action (see Norman v Otis Elevator Co., 32 AD2d 567). If no such individual is presently employed by the defendant hospital it should furnish to plaintiffs the names of any former employees who possess the requisite knowledge. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

—In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 15, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying their motion for an order pursuant to CPLR article 31 requiring the defendant hospital to appear for an examination before trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and, upon reargument, motion granted. In our opinion plaintiffs are entitled to the production for oral examination of an individual with knowledge-of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the action (see Norman v Otis Elevator Co., 32 AD2d 567). If no such individual is presently employed by the defendant hospital it should furnish to plaintiffs the names of any former employees who possess the requisite knowledge. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 911, 419 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-zarou-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack