Martinez v. Martinez

Civil Court of the City of New York

Martinez v. Martinez

40 Misc. 2d 211, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1637

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedSeptember 13, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Misc. 2d 211 (Martinez v. Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. Martinez, 40 Misc. 2d 211, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1637 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Samuel A. Spiegel, J.

Motion by codefendants, Mildred and Mark L. Hartman, to conduct a discovery and inspection of a written signed statement taken of defendant, Mark L. Hartman, by codefendant, Ernest Martinez.

The defendant, Martinez, by a representative of the Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., took a statement from his codefendant, Mark L. Hartman. This was done before the commencement of the instant action and Mr. Hartman was not given a copy of the statement.

Defendant, Hartman, cites many cases which hold that full disclosure of statements taken by adverse parties prior to the commencement of an action in eases of personal injury may be obtained (Wilhelm v. Abel, 1 A D 2d 55; Totoritus v. Stefan, 6 A D 2d 123). The situation in the case at bar is not one of adverse parties, but one of codefendants with no apparent issue between them. Buie 3120 of the Civil Practice Law and Buies respecting discovery is to be followed in the instant motion and is more liberal in granting discovery and inspection than section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. The rule under the Civil Practice Law and Buies provides that “ After commencement of an action, any party may serve on any other party notice: 1. to produce and permit the party seeking discovery, or someone acting on his behalf, to inspect, copy, test or photograph any specifically designated documents or any things which are in the possession, custody or control of the party served

The application of this rule to the instant motion gives the defendant, Hartman, the right to a discovery and inspection of the statement taken by his codefendant’s insurance representatives. It does not limit the right to adverse parties or parties in issue as has been stated by codefendant, Martinez.

[212]*212Accordingly, where oile defendant obtains a statement of a codefendant as in the present situation, the party who gave the statement may move for discovery and inspection of the statement. Motion granted.

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

Samuel A. Spiegel, J.

Motion by codefendants, Mildred and Mark L. Hartman, to conduct a discovery and inspection of a written signed statement taken of defendant, Mark L. Hartman, by codefendant, Ernest Martinez.

The defendant, Martinez, by a representative of the Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., took a statement from his codefendant, Mark L. Hartman. This was done before the commencement of the instant action and Mr. Hartman was not given a copy of the statement.

Defendant, Hartman, cites many cases which hold that full disclosure of statements taken by adverse parties prior to the commencement of an action in eases of personal injury may be obtained (Wilhelm v. Abel, 1 A D 2d 55; Totoritus v. Stefan, 6 A D 2d 123). The situation in the case at bar is not one of adverse parties, but one of codefendants with no apparent issue between them. Buie 3120 of the Civil Practice Law and Buies respecting discovery is to be followed in the instant motion and is more liberal in granting discovery and inspection than section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. The rule under the Civil Practice Law and Buies provides that “ After commencement of an action, any party may serve on any other party notice: 1. to produce and permit the party seeking discovery, or someone acting on his behalf, to inspect, copy, test or photograph any specifically designated documents or any things which are in the possession, custody or control of the party served

The application of this rule to the instant motion gives the defendant, Hartman, the right to a discovery and inspection of the statement taken by his codefendant’s insurance representatives. It does not limit the right to adverse parties or parties in issue as has been stated by codefendant, Martinez.

[212]*212Accordingly, where oile defendant obtains a statement of a codefendant as in the present situation, the party who gave the statement may move for discovery and inspection of the statement. Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Misc. 2d 211, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-martinez-nycivct-1963.