Friedman v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Friedman v. State

161 Misc. 358, 292 N.Y.S. 90, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1560

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 16, 1936

DocketClaim No. 24483

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 161 Misc. 358 (Friedman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. State, 161 Misc. 358, 292 N.Y.S. 90, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1560 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Greenberg, J.

This is a motion made by claimant for an examination of witnesses before trial, and for an order permitting claimant to inspect and discover records and to make extracts therefrom, and to examine witnesses with respect thereto, and to inspect and discover and photograph the premises where the accident is alleged to have occurred.

There is no statutory authority for the examination, inspection or discovery sought by the claimant. The Court of Claims Act and Rules of the Court of Claims make no provision for such examination or discovery. The fact that plaintiff is a representative of a deceased, and brings this action in a representative capacity, does not afford him further or additional rights. (Falco v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 161 App. Div. 735, 738.) While the examination sought herein is of “ witnesses,” it is my opinion that the result would be the same as the examination of the State as a party; the examination would be of officers and employees of the State. (Cooper v. Village of Brockport, 246 App. Div. 571.)

Upon the authority of the case of Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New York (259 N. Y. 509), and the recent decision of the Court of Claims in Langdon v. State of New York (160 Misc. 946), the motion herein must be denied. Submit order accordingly.

Barrett, P. J., concurs.

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

Greenberg, J.

This is a motion made by claimant for an examination of witnesses before trial, and for an order permitting claimant to inspect and discover records and to make extracts therefrom, and to examine witnesses with respect thereto, and to inspect and discover and photograph the premises where the accident is alleged to have occurred.

There is no statutory authority for the examination, inspection or discovery sought by the claimant. The Court of Claims Act and Rules of the Court of Claims make no provision for such examination or discovery. The fact that plaintiff is a representative of a deceased, and brings this action in a representative capacity, does not afford him further or additional rights. (Falco v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 161 App. Div. 735, 738.) While the examination sought herein is of “ witnesses,” it is my opinion that the result would be the same as the examination of the State as a party; the examination would be of officers and employees of the State. (Cooper v. Village of Brockport, 246 App. Div. 571.)

Upon the authority of the case of Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New York (259 N. Y. 509), and the recent decision of the Court of Claims in Langdon v. State of New York (160 Misc. 946), the motion herein must be denied. Submit order accordingly.

Barrett, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 Misc. 358, 292 N.Y.S. 90, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-state-nyclaimsct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack