Sack v. All States Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sack v. All States Holding Corp.

268 A.D. 793, 49 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3508

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

DecidedJune 19, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 268 A.D. 793 (Sack v. All States Holding Corp.) 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

Sack v. All States Holding Corp., 268 A.D. 793, 49 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was struck by an elevator in a building owned by defendant All States Holding Corporation and managed by defendant Mammoth Storage Warehouse, Inc. On plaintiff’s motion an order was made directing the examination before trial of defendants as adverse parties. Such examination has been had. The order also directed defendants to produce a statement concerning the happening of the accident, prepared by a representative of defendants and signed by plaintiff, and it is from the latter part of the order that defendants appeal. Plaintiff in his moving affidavit merely states that the statement was obtained at a time when he was not represented by counsel and he does not recollect its contents. Assuming, without deciding, that the statement is a document within the purview of section 324 of the Civil Practice Act, as such an application is directed to the sound discretion of the court (Murphy v. Keenan, 101 Misc. 443, affd. 183 App. Div. 923), it was error to grant the motion. Meehan v. McCloy (266 App. Div. 706) and Bearor v. Kapple (24 N. Y. S. 2d 655, not officially reported), relied upon by respondent, are readily distinguished. In those cases it appeared that the statements were obtained by overreaching or fraud on the part of defendants’ representative, that plaintiffs were coerced to make them, and that they were obtained when plaintiffs were sick or in such a condition that they did not know and could not appreciate what they were saying or doing. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion, insofar as it grants an inspection of the statement made by plaintiff, denied in the exercise of discretion, without costs. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur.

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

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was struck by an elevator in a building owned by defendant All States Holding Corporation and managed by defendant Mammoth Storage Warehouse, Inc. On plaintiff’s motion an order was made directing the examination before trial of defendants as adverse parties. Such examination has been had. The order also directed defendants to produce a statement concerning the happening of the accident, prepared by a representative of defendants and signed by plaintiff, and it is from the latter part of the order that defendants appeal. Plaintiff in his moving affidavit merely states that the statement was obtained at a time when he was not represented by counsel and he does not recollect its contents. Assuming, without deciding, that the statement is a document within the purview of section 324 of the Civil Practice Act, as such an application is directed to the sound discretion of the court (Murphy v. Keenan, 101 Misc. 443, affd. 183 App. Div. 923), it was error to grant the motion. Meehan v. McCloy (266 App. Div. 706) and Bearor v. Kapple (24 N. Y. S. 2d 655, not officially reported), relied upon by respondent, are readily distinguished. In those cases it appeared that the statements were obtained by overreaching or fraud on the part of defendants’ representative, that plaintiffs were coerced to make them, and that they were obtained when plaintiffs were sick or in such a condition that they did not know and could not appreciate what they were saying or doing. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion, insofar as it grants an inspection of the statement made by plaintiff, denied in the exercise of discretion, without costs. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 793, 49 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sack-v-all-states-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack