Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Power Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Power Authority

51 A.D.2d 521, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 521 (Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Power Authority) 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

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Power Authority, 51 A.D.2d 521, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 10, 1975, denying plaintiff’s motion directing examination of defendant as an adverse party by Richard E. Burnett, an employee of Uhl, Hall & Rich, the project engineer; and granting examination of the witness Burnett as a witness, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The sole issue on this appeal is whether Special Term should have directed the examination of the witness as an agent of defendant. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying that relief on the present record, leaving the issue of whether the witness and the engineer were agents of the defendant for further factual development in appropriate discovery proceedings or on the trial itself, and expressly directing that "the effect and use at trial of the deposition herein directed is a matter for the trial justice.” The court notes that disclosure proceedings in this case began at least five and one-half years ago; the proper administration of justice requires that they be completed expeditiously. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 10, 1975, denying plaintiff’s motion directing examination of defendant as an adverse party by Richard E. Burnett, an employee of Uhl, Hall & Rich, the project engineer; and granting examination of the witness Burnett as a witness, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The sole issue on this appeal is whether Special Term should have directed the examination of the witness as an agent of defendant. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying that relief on the present record, leaving the issue of whether the witness and the engineer were agents of the defendant for further factual development in appropriate discovery proceedings or on the trial itself, and expressly directing that "the effect and use at trial of the deposition herein directed is a matter for the trial justice.” The court notes that disclosure proceedings in this case began at least five and one-half years ago; the proper administration of justice requires that they be completed expeditiously. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 521, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-chapman-scott-corp-v-power-authority-nyappdiv-1976.