Grattan v. Societa Per Azzioni Cotonificio Cantoni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grattan v. Societa Per Azzioni Cotonificio Cantoni

285 A.D. 1042, 140 N.Y.S.2d 154

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

DecidedApril 26, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1042 (Grattan v. Societa Per Azzioni Cotonificio Cantoni) 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

Grattan v. Societa Per Azzioni Cotonificio Cantoni, 285 A.D. 1042, 140 N.Y.S.2d 154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

(dissenting in part). The appellant, an Italian corporation located abroad, has been ordered to appear for examination before trial by three designated persons, with an alternative provision that if these persons are not going to appear at the trial as witnesses, then such examination is to be had by such officers, agents or employees having knowledge of the facts as will appear and testify at the trial of the action. Appellant is directed to serve notice at least ten days before the expected arrival of said persons and produce them not later than five days before the trial.

I vote to modify the order appealed from by striking the alternative provisions of the order. It seems to me that they amount to a provision for the examination in advance of trial of any person connected with the appellant and intended to be called as a witness. This is unauthorized by section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, which permits examinations of designated persons when their testimony is shown to be material and necessary to the party obtaining the examination. Appellant should not be required to name its witnesses or submit them for cross-examination in advance of trial merely because they are to be witnesses. Appellant, in fact, should not be required to determine which witnesses it will call until plaintiff’s proof is in.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan, J., dissents, in part, in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The date for the examination to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice.

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

Callahan, J.

(dissenting in part). The appellant, an Italian corporation located abroad, has been ordered to appear for examination before trial by three designated persons, with an alternative provision that if these persons are not going to appear at the trial as witnesses, then such examination is to be had by such officers, agents or employees having knowledge of the facts as will appear and testify at the trial of the action. Appellant is directed to serve notice at least ten days before the expected arrival of said persons and produce them not later than five days before the trial.

I vote to modify the order appealed from by striking the alternative provisions of the order. It seems to me that they amount to a provision for the examination in advance of trial of any person connected with the appellant and intended to be called as a witness. This is unauthorized by section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, which permits examinations of designated persons when their testimony is shown to be material and necessary to the party obtaining the examination. Appellant should not be required to name its witnesses or submit them for cross-examination in advance of trial merely because they are to be witnesses. Appellant, in fact, should not be required to determine which witnesses it will call until plaintiff’s proof is in.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan, J., dissents, in part, in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The date for the examination to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1042, 140 N.Y.S.2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grattan-v-societa-per-azzioni-cotonificio-cantoni-nyappdiv-1955.