Snap Lite Corp. v. Stewart Warner Corp.

S.D. New York

Snap Lite Corp. v. Stewart Warner Corp.

40 F. Supp. 776, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2768

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 3, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 F. Supp. 776 (Snap Lite Corp. v. Stewart Warner Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snap Lite Corp. v. Stewart Warner Corp., 40 F. Supp. 776, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2768 (S.D.N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

Motion to vacate notice of examination granted as to Brawley. It appears that plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to examine this person as a defendant in a companion litigation in the New York Supreme Court. Upon this account, I think plaintiff should not be permitted to circumvent that ruling by means of the simple expedient of instituting a suit in this court. Upon conclusion of the ’State court action, plaintiff may re-serve Brawley with a notice of examination. In the event this case proceeds to trial in advance of the State court action, plaintiff may move this court for an order authorizing an examination of Brawley upon whatever terms it claims are proper. Compare Bachrach v. General Investment Corporation, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 84; Finkelstein v. Boylan, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 657.

Motion is denied as to Miller. The mere fact that Miller is a detective employed by the City of New York, in its Police Department, does not exempt him from examination in this court as a witness in a suit not involving the City of New York. It is not controverted that in a pending action in the State court, and which deals with substantially the same parties and issues, plaintiff was permitted to examine as witnesses certain police detectives employed by the City of New York.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

Motion to vacate notice of examination granted as to Brawley. It appears that plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to examine this person as a defendant in a companion litigation in the New York Supreme Court. Upon this account, I think plaintiff should not be permitted to circumvent that ruling by means of the simple expedient of instituting a suit in this court. Upon conclusion of the ’State court action, plaintiff may re-serve Brawley with a notice of examination. In the event this case proceeds to trial in advance of the State court action, plaintiff may move this court for an order authorizing an examination of Brawley upon whatever terms it claims are proper. Compare Bachrach v. General Investment Corporation, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 84; Finkelstein v. Boylan, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 657.

Motion is denied as to Miller. The mere fact that Miller is a detective employed by the City of New York, in its Police Department, does not exempt him from examination in this court as a witness in a suit not involving the City of New York. It is not controverted that in a pending action in the State court, and which deals with substantially the same parties and issues, plaintiff was permitted to examine as witnesses certain police detectives employed by the City of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 F. Supp. 776, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snap-lite-corp-v-stewart-warner-corp-nysd-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack