Friedman v. State

New York State Court of Claims

Friedman v. State

164 Misc. 400, 299 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1814

CourtNew York Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 8, 1937

DocketClaim No. 24483

StatusPublished

This text of 164 Misc. 400 (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, 164 Misc. 400, 299 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1814 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Greenberg, J.

Claimant seeks an order under section 296-a of the Civil Practice Act for the examination of Dr. Blalock and Dr. Lewis, and also for the production of all records and documents pertaining to the examination to be held as to the injuries and treatment received by the claimant’s intestate. The claimant’s intestate, at the time of his death, was confined to the New York Psychiatric' Institute, and both Dr. Blalock and Dr. Lewis are attached to that institution and are employees of the State of New York. - - .....

[401]*401If the examination of said physicians were permitted, it would be tantamount to an examination before trial of the State of New York. The claimant has heretofore sought an examination before trial of these witnesses under sections 288 and 289 of the denied, the court holding that the State could not be examined before trial;

* upon an appeal taken to the Appellate Division, the order of this court was unanimously affirmed (Friedman v. State, 250 App. Div. 809). In the enactment of section 296-a of the Civil Practice Act, it was not the intention of the Legislature to broaden the provisions of sections 288 and 289 of the Civil Practice Act, but rather, the purpose of its enactment was for the convenience of the physicians, surgeons and nurses attached to charitable institutions and to save them the inconvenience of attending upon trials. The Appellate Division having ruled in this case that the testimony of these witnesses could not be taken before trial, the court cannot lend its approval to an attempt to accomplish by indirection that which has been denied by direct application. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Barrett, P. J., concurs.

161 Misc. 358.

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

Greenberg, J.

Claimant seeks an order under section 296-a of the Civil Practice Act for the examination of Dr. Blalock and Dr. Lewis, and also for the production of all records and documents pertaining to the examination to be held as to the injuries and treatment received by the claimant’s intestate. The claimant’s intestate, at the time of his death, was confined to the New York Psychiatric' Institute, and both Dr. Blalock and Dr. Lewis are attached to that institution and are employees of the State of New York. - - .....

[401]*401If the examination of said physicians were permitted, it would be tantamount to an examination before trial of the State of New York. The claimant has heretofore sought an examination before trial of these witnesses under sections 288 and 289 of the denied, the court holding that the State could not be examined before trial;

* upon an appeal taken to the Appellate Division, the order of this court was unanimously affirmed (Friedman v. State, 250 App. Div. 809). In the enactment of section 296-a of the Civil Practice Act, it was not the intention of the Legislature to broaden the provisions of sections 288 and 289 of the Civil Practice Act, but rather, the purpose of its enactment was for the convenience of the physicians, surgeons and nurses attached to charitable institutions and to save them the inconvenience of attending upon trials. The Appellate Division having ruled in this case that the testimony of these witnesses could not be taken before trial, the court cannot lend its approval to an attempt to accomplish by indirection that which has been denied by direct application. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Barrett, P. J., concurs.

161 Misc. 358.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 Misc. 400, 299 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-state-nyclaimsct-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack