Roselieve v. Erie Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roselieve v. Erie Railroad

15 A.D.2d 884, 225 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 884 (Roselieve v. Erie Railroad) 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

Roselieve v. Erie Railroad, 15 A.D.2d 884, 225 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff is presently engaged in an examination before trial of various of the defendant’s employees, presumably all who might have knowledge of the accident and who gave written statements to their employer. The documents sought would not be evidence (Urbina v. McLain, 4 A D 2d 589) and while we have liberalized somewhat the general rule (see Beyer v. Keller, 11 A D 2d 426), the latter ease may be readily distinguished from the case before us. Here there is not that close relationship between the witness and the injured party, nor that disability on the part of the injured party which led us to permit discovery and inspection in the interests of justice in Beyer v. Keller (supra). At this stage of the litigation we are not persuaded that discovery and inspection is required in the interests of justice, or presently advisable. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

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

Plaintiff is presently engaged in an examination before trial of various of the defendant’s employees, presumably all who might have knowledge of the accident and who gave written statements to their employer. The documents sought would not be evidence (Urbina v. McLain, 4 A D 2d 589) and while we have liberalized somewhat the general rule (see Beyer v. Keller, 11 A D 2d 426), the latter ease may be readily distinguished from the case before us. Here there is not that close relationship between the witness and the injured party, nor that disability on the part of the injured party which led us to permit discovery and inspection in the interests of justice in Beyer v. Keller (supra). At this stage of the litigation we are not persuaded that discovery and inspection is required in the interests of justice, or presently advisable. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 884, 225 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roselieve-v-erie-railroad-nyappdiv-1962.