Di Laura v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Laura v. State

275 A.D.2d 639

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1949

DocketClaim No. 28459

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 639 (Di Laura 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

Di Laura v. State, 275 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order for examination and production was granted pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 17 of the Court of Claims Act and section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. While section 296 of the Civil Practice Act may be held to implement section 17 of the Court of Claims Act (Buchalter v. State of New York, 172 Misc. 420; Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. v. State of New York, 174 Misc. 743), there is no statutory authority by which the claimant may avail himself of the provisions of section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. In this case it is sought to examine certain State officers and employees in reference to borings, photographs and map which were made more than a year after the claim was filed and which were made by the State in preparation for trial. The order of examination requires production of the stone acquired by the borings, together with the map and photographs. It is apparent that the claimant is seeking to ascertain in advance of trial, the results of the State’s investigation through its experts made in preparation for trial. There is no authority for such examination. Moreover, it does not appear that the examination is necessary to enable the claimant to properly prepare for trial or present his claim to the court.

All concur. Present — -Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The order for examination and production was granted pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 17 of the Court of Claims Act and section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. While section 296 of the Civil Practice Act may be held to implement section 17 of the Court of Claims Act (Buchalter v. State of New York, 172 Misc. 420; Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. v. State of New York, 174 Misc. 743), there is no statutory authority by which the claimant may avail himself of the provisions of section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. In this case it is sought to examine certain State officers and employees in reference to borings, photographs and map which were made more than a year after the claim was filed and which were made by the State in preparation for trial. The order of examination requires production of the stone acquired by the borings, together with the map and photographs. It is apparent that the claimant is seeking to ascertain in advance of trial, the results of the State’s investigation through its experts made in preparation for trial. There is no authority for such examination. Moreover, it does not appear that the examination is necessary to enable the claimant to properly prepare for trial or present his claim to the court.

All concur. Present — -Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Order reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-laura-v-state-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack