Stettner v. Twin Double TV, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stettner v. Twin Double TV, Inc.

34 A.D.2d 924, 311 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460

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

DecidedJune 16, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 924 (Stettner v. Twin Double TV, Inc.) 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

Stettner v. Twin Double TV, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 924, 311 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered March 31, 1970, denying plaintiff’s application for an order compelling discovery, modified on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and motion granted to the extent of directing the corporate defendant to appear for a further examination by Pascal Perri, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. In response to plaintiff’s notice of examination, defendant produced Schwartzman, its secretary. Schwartzman is actually an attorney with no knowledge of the facts underlying the claim in suit. It further appears that one Perri, now an officer, though only an employee at the time of the transaction, has direct and personal knowledge of the facts. Having produced only a witness who was unable to respond, defendants should be required to appear by a person having the needed information. (See Parrish é Go. v. Applesteim, 28 A D 2d 979; Gould v. Peck Mem. Hosp., 24 A D 2d 449; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3101.27.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order entered March 31, 1970, denying plaintiff’s application for an order compelling discovery, modified on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and motion granted to the extent of directing the corporate defendant to appear for a further examination by Pascal Perri, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. In response to plaintiff’s notice of examination, defendant produced Schwartzman, its secretary. Schwartzman is actually an attorney with no knowledge of the facts underlying the claim in suit. It further appears that one Perri, now an officer, though only an employee at the time of the transaction, has direct and personal knowledge of the facts. Having produced only a witness who was unable to respond, defendants should be required to appear by a person having the needed information. (See Parrish é Go. v. Applesteim, 28 A D 2d 979; Gould v. Peck Mem. Hosp., 24 A D 2d 449; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3101.27.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 924, 311 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stettner-v-twin-double-tv-inc-nyappdiv-1970.