Columbia v. Lee

239 A.D. 849
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 849 (Columbia v. Lee) 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
Columbia v. Lee, 239 A.D. 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Order denying defendants’ motion to require the plaintiff to sign and subscribe his testimony reversed on the [850]*850law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The proper practice to pursue is that indicated in Matter of Samuels (213 Fed. 447). Such a practice keeps the amount of friction and conflict at a minimum. Before the witness signs and subscribes his testimony he may add to the foot thereof a statement that certain of his answers (indicating the answers to which he refers) are incorrect, giving the reason therefor: either that it is an incorrect transcript or that his present recollection of the facts is more accurate, and he may then state what his corrected answer is and give any other explanation he desires with respect to his prior answer. After adding such a statement he must sign and subscribe his testimony. This will leave available to the trial court the original form of answer, which may then be compared with the second form of answer to determine which one may or should be credited. This will also make known before the trial whether there is any need to have the transcript authenticated as to its accuracy by the stenographer. This procedure gives to the plaintiff every practical benefit that would accrue to him by a literal following of the practice indicated in Van Son v. Herbst (215 App. Div. 563), which concerned a case where a witness was denied an opportunity to in any form make corrections to the transcript of his testimony when he was called upon to sign it. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Principale v. Lewner
187 Misc. 2d 878 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
Dale Factors Corp. v. Jay Kay Metal Specialties Corp.
46 Misc. 2d 392 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Marine Trust Co. v. Collins
19 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Skeaney v. Silver Beach Realty Corp.
10 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Camacho v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.
23 Misc. 2d 966 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Leventhal v. Consolidated Carriers Corp.
17 Misc. 2d 671 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Gottfried v. Gottfried
197 Misc. 562 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
American Worcestershire Sauce Co. v. Armour & Co.
194 Misc. 745 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Diriwachter v. Owens
194 Misc. 177 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Dworkow v. Bachrack
193 Misc. 521 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
Hartmann v. New York Post
189 Misc. 984 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Mansbach v. Klausner
179 Misc. 952 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-v-lee-nyappdiv-1933.