Robillard v. Pigeon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robillard v. Pigeon

24 A.D.2d 1060, 265 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2680

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1060 (Robillard v. Pigeon) 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

Robillard v. Pigeon, 24 A.D.2d 1060, 265 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff moved to take on written interrogatories the testimony of a Massachusetts physician at Salem, Massachusetts. The defendants then moved to cancel the notice or, in the alternative, to be permitted to cross-examine the doctor orally at Salem. The court ordered an open commission on condition that the defendants defray the expenses of the plaintiffs’ attorney in attending the examination. The sole issue raised by the defendant-appellant is that “No proper cross examination of an expert witness can be made by written cross questions” and that hence the provision for expenses should not have been made. We find no compelling reason to interfere with the exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Order affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff moved to take on written interrogatories the testimony of a Massachusetts physician at Salem, Massachusetts. The defendants then moved to cancel the notice or, in the alternative, to be permitted to cross-examine the doctor orally at Salem. The court ordered an open commission on condition that the defendants defray the expenses of the plaintiffs’ attorney in attending the examination. The sole issue raised by the defendant-appellant is that “No proper cross examination of an expert witness can be made by written cross questions” and that hence the provision for expenses should not have been made. We find no compelling reason to interfere with the exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Order affirmed, with $20 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1060, 265 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robillard-v-pigeon-nyappdiv-1965.