Lajara v. Farrell Lines Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lajara v. Farrell Lines Inc.

73 A.D.2d 859, 423 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9745

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 859 (Lajara v. Farrell Lines 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

Lajara v. Farrell Lines Inc., 73 A.D.2d 859, 423 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 16, 1978, directing plaintiff to supply defendant with copies of statements of plaintiff’s cocrew members, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. While we do not consider statements by these seamen, former employees, as statements by the defendant, we think Special Term did not abuse its discretion in directing the furnishing of these statements, particularly as the witnesses involved are merchant seamen who may not be readily available. Of course, fairness requires that such discretion should also be exercised in plaintiff’s favor with respect to statements obtained by defendant, if the occasion arises. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Silver-man and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 16, 1978, directing plaintiff to supply defendant with copies of statements of plaintiff’s cocrew members, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. While we do not consider statements by these seamen, former employees, as statements by the defendant, we think Special Term did not abuse its discretion in directing the furnishing of these statements, particularly as the witnesses involved are merchant seamen who may not be readily available. Of course, fairness requires that such discretion should also be exercised in plaintiff’s favor with respect to statements obtained by defendant, if the occasion arises. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Silver-man and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 859, 423 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lajara-v-farrell-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1980.