Northern Ins. v. Wood

New York Supreme Court

Northern Ins. v. Wood

118 N.Y.S. 1043

DecidedJune 15, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 118 N.Y.S. 1043 (Northern Ins. v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northern Ins. v. Wood, 118 N.Y.S. 1043 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

The defendants move to vacate an ex parte order for their examination by the plaintiff before trial, or for such other or further relief as may be just. The action is brought to recover from the defendants, who were formerly the agents of the plaintiff, certain insurance premiums, alleged to have been collected by the defendants in the course of their agency, less certain credits for commissions and other items of expenses and offsets. The answer consists of various denials, a defense, and four counterclaims, to which the plaintiff has replied. The order directs the defendants to appear on a day named and “submit to an examination concerning the matters relevant to the issues in this action.” After reciting the condition of the action and the substance of the pleadings, the affidavit upon which the order was granted continues:

“It will be necessary, and is necessary, for the plaintiff to have information concerning the defenses raised by the aforesaid answer and the counterclaims therein set forth as to the following matters.”

Then follow particulars of the various matters in the defense and counterclaims upon which information is sought. An examination upon various other matters is also sought. While the later decisions [1044]*1044have done away with the refinements and technicalities which formerly surrounded the taking of the deposition of a party before trial (Goldmark v. U. S. Electro-Galvanizing Co., 111 App. Div. 526, 97 N. Y. Supp. 1078; Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 123 App. Div. 814, 108 N. Y. Supp. 321), it is still true that the only purpose for which such an examination can be had is to establish the case or defense of the moving party. It cannot be used merely*to obtain information concerning the adversary’s case and to enable the moving party to prepare to meet it at the trial. Merrill & Baker v. Woolworth, 53 Misc. Rep. 253, 103 N. Y. Supp. 57. This must be done, if at all, by requiring a bill of particulars. Dudley v. N. Y. Filter Co., 80 App. Div. 164, 80 N. Y. Supp. 744; Wood v. Hoffman Co., 121 App. Div. 636, 106 N. Y. Supp. 308. I think the plaintiff is entitled to an order for an examination of the defendants upon all the matters alleged in the complaint which are denied by the answer, and upon any new matter contained in the reply, but upon no other matters.

The order should be modified accordingly, without costs. Settle order on notice.

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

GUY, J.

The defendants move to vacate an ex parte order for their examination by the plaintiff before trial, or for such other or further relief as may be just. The action is brought to recover from the defendants, who were formerly the agents of the plaintiff, certain insurance premiums, alleged to have been collected by the defendants in the course of their agency, less certain credits for commissions and other items of expenses and offsets. The answer consists of various denials, a defense, and four counterclaims, to which the plaintiff has replied. The order directs the defendants to appear on a day named and “submit to an examination concerning the matters relevant to the issues in this action.” After reciting the condition of the action and the substance of the pleadings, the affidavit upon which the order was granted continues:

“It will be necessary, and is necessary, for the plaintiff to have information concerning the defenses raised by the aforesaid answer and the counterclaims therein set forth as to the following matters.”

Then follow particulars of the various matters in the defense and counterclaims upon which information is sought. An examination upon various other matters is also sought. While the later decisions [1044]*1044have done away with the refinements and technicalities which formerly surrounded the taking of the deposition of a party before trial (Goldmark v. U. S. Electro-Galvanizing Co., 111 App. Div. 526, 97 N. Y. Supp. 1078; Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 123 App. Div. 814, 108 N. Y. Supp. 321), it is still true that the only purpose for which such an examination can be had is to establish the case or defense of the moving party. It cannot be used merely*to obtain information concerning the adversary’s case and to enable the moving party to prepare to meet it at the trial. Merrill & Baker v. Woolworth, 53 Misc. Rep. 253, 103 N. Y. Supp. 57. This must be done, if at all, by requiring a bill of particulars. Dudley v. N. Y. Filter Co., 80 App. Div. 164, 80 N. Y. Supp. 744; Wood v. Hoffman Co., 121 App. Div. 636, 106 N. Y. Supp. 308. I think the plaintiff is entitled to an order for an examination of the defendants upon all the matters alleged in the complaint which are denied by the answer, and upon any new matter contained in the reply, but upon no other matters.

The order should be modified accordingly, without costs. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 N.Y.S. 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-ins-v-wood-nysupct-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack