Pearson v. Pouthier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pearson v. Pouthier

33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 531 (Pearson v. Pouthier) 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

Pearson v. Pouthier, 33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We recognize that recent decisions have liberalized the interpretation of the words “special circumstances” as contained in CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [4]). There remains, however, the basic requirement that a party seeking such examination should make full disclosure so as to establish “ a possible connection of the witness with the transactions involved, about which she would have special and exclusive knowledge.” (Courtland v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 6 A D 2d 789.) This the defendant has'failed to do. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term,,.denying'motion to take deposition.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio;'Witiner,Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.,,.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We recognize that recent decisions have liberalized the interpretation of the words “special circumstances” as contained in CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [4]). There remains, however, the basic requirement that a party seeking such examination should make full disclosure so as to establish “ a possible connection of the witness with the transactions involved, about which she would have special and exclusive knowledge.” (Courtland v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 6 A D 2d 789.) This the defendant has'failed to do. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term,,.denying'motion to take deposition.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio;'Witiner,Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.,,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-pouthier-nyappdiv-1969.