Kustka v. Belmont Terrace Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kustka v. Belmont Terrace Holdings, Inc.

234 A.D. 713

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 713 (Kustka v. Belmont Terrace Holdings, 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

Kustka v. Belmont Terrace Holdings, Inc., 234 A.D. 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order as resettled, in so far as appealed from, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. It was within the discretion of the court at Special Term to limit the number of witnesses whose depositions were to be taken in Texas where it appeared that there was but a single issue and that the testimony of other witnesses proposed would be merely cumulative. Furthermore, the affidavit of the plaintiff was inconclusive in that it failed to show that the witnesses eliminated had any knowledge on the subject. If the plaintiff has been disappointed in the testimony given, his remedy is by making a new application for the examination of other witnesses on proper proof that such witnesses have knowledge on the., question in dispute and are material witnesses on that subject. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

— Order as resettled, in so far as appealed from, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. It was within the discretion of the court at Special Term to limit the number of witnesses whose depositions were to be taken in Texas where it appeared that there was but a single issue and that the testimony of other witnesses proposed would be merely cumulative. Furthermore, the affidavit of the plaintiff was inconclusive in that it failed to show that the witnesses eliminated had any knowledge on the subject. If the plaintiff has been disappointed in the testimony given, his remedy is by making a new application for the examination of other witnesses on proper proof that such witnesses have knowledge on the., question in dispute and are material witnesses on that subject. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kustka-v-belmont-terrace-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-1931.