Hansen v. City of New York

283 A.D. 891, 130 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5667
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 891 (Hansen v. City of New York) 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
Hansen v. City of New York, 283 A.D. 891, 130 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while she was attempting to board an express train from the platform of a subway station, defendant appeals from an order directing defendant’s examination before trial, by certain designated employees, and groups of employees. Order modified by striking therefrom item II (a) and item IV in its entirety and by eliminating the provisions of items I, II and III which direct the production for examination of certain designated employees, and by substituting therefor a direction that defendant be examined by one or more of its officers or employees, having knowledge of the facts. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs; examination to proceed on five days’ notice. [892]*892Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the motion for the examination demonstrates that the evidence sought to be adduced under items II (a) and IV will be neither material nor necessary on trial. On the record presented defendant should not, in the first instance, be required to produce for examination the employees or groups of employees specified in the order. It should be enough if defendant produces one or more of its officers or employees, who has or have knowledge of the facts. If, after an examination of the person or persons produced, it shall appear that a further examination of any specific person or persons is necessary, application may be made to the court for such further examination. (Cf. Titterington v. Pioneer Instrument Co., 254 App. Div. 699, and United States Overseas Airlines v. Cox, 283 App. Div. 31.) Nolan, P. J., Adel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rohde v. State
33 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Free Synagogue of Flushing v. Board of Estimate
57 Misc. 2d 80 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Rutherford v. Albany Medical Center Hospital
48 Misc. 2d 1017 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Luddy v. State
45 Misc. 2d 948 (New York State Court of Claims, 1965)
Barry v. State
44 Misc. 2d 568 (New York State Court of Claims, 1964)
Martinez v. Union Free School District No. 4
41 Misc. 2d 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Gooden v. City of New York
23 Misc. 2d 271 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Box-Scot Restaurant, Inc. v. Tedeschi
23 Misc. 2d 455 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Sherman v. Hoffman
19 Misc. 2d 895 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Schuster v. City of New York
20 Misc. 2d 516 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Held v. City of New York
6 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Gross v. Price
2 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Halpern v. Cavanaugh
208 Misc. 131 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D. 891, 130 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1954.