Hernandez v. Bal Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Bal Enterprises, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 638, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 638 (Hernandez v. Bal Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Hernandez v. Bal Enterprises, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 638, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on July 12, 1961, denying plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial, as witnesses, of five named employees of a corporation, of such a corporation as a witness, and of defendant by a named employee, in a wrongful death action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent but without prejudice to the renewal of the motion after examination of defendant, by notice or motion, in the usual manner, that is, with defendant selecting an officer or employee familiar with the facts. The motion was premature in that such regular examination of defendant may supply the necessary information. If the motion is renewed, moreover, it may be granted only upon a sufficient showing of the hostility of the witnesses (Pomata v. Long Is. R.R., 271 App. Div. 1020). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on July 12, 1961, denying plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial, as witnesses, of five named employees of a corporation, of such a corporation as a witness, and of defendant by a named employee, in a wrongful death action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent but without prejudice to the renewal of the motion after examination of defendant, by notice or motion, in the usual manner, that is, with defendant selecting an officer or employee familiar with the facts. The motion was premature in that such regular examination of defendant may supply the necessary information. If the motion is renewed, moreover, it may be granted only upon a sufficient showing of the hostility of the witnesses (Pomata v. Long Is. R.R., 271 App. Div. 1020). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 638, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-bal-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1962.