Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Peterman v. Schpelman

Peterman v. Schpelman

274 A.D. 901, 82 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 18, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 901 (Peterman v. Schpelman) 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
Peterman v. Schpelman, 274 A.D. 901, 82 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Opinion

In a negligence action, order denying motion of plaintiff for examination of defendant for the purpose of identifying one or more other proper defendants, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Assuming that the pertinent provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 870 et seq.) precluded examination before commencement of the action for a purpose other than perpetuating testimony (contra Matter of Weil, 25 App. Div. 173), present section 295 of the Civil Practice Act warrants examination for the purpose of identifying a party where, at least, a meritorious cause is shown, as an incident to the protection of the rights of the expected party in the prosecution of the action. (Lauffer v. Eastern Star Temple, 210 App. Div. 619, 621, 622; Matter of Strope [Albany Steel & Iron Supply Co.), 263 App. Div. 765; Matter of Weil, supra.) Rule 122 of the Rules of Civil Practice furthermore may be read in conjunction with section 295 of the Civil Practice Act. That rule contemplates an application to take depositions to draw a complaint under any provision of article 29 of the Civil Practice Act. The term “ party ”, as used in the rule, includes one who is about to commence an action. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wiant v. Hudson
648 A.2d 482 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1994)
Perez v. New York City Health
84 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Reddish v. K. & C. Metal Products Co.
42 Misc. 2d 671 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Willis v. Foster Wheeler Corp.
31 Misc. 2d 799 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Khuri v. M. W. Kellogg Co.
13 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
D'Angelo v. Town of Oyster Bay
24 Misc. 2d 135 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Cidilko v. Palestine
24 Misc. 2d 19 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
In re Treichel
22 Misc. 2d 111 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
In re Roland
10 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Giamberdino v. Mileo
10 A.D.2d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Wollen v. B. R. De Witt, Inc.
17 Misc. 2d 754 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Kabes v. Young
11 Misc. 2d 698 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
In re Dewhirst
4 Misc. 2d 756 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Silverman v. Nachwalter
10 Misc. 2d 169 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)
In re Weiss
208 Misc. 1010 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Kenerson v. Davis
278 A.D. 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D. 901, 82 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterman-v-schpelman-nyappdiv-1948.