Tibodeau v. Salenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tibodeau v. Salenger

63 A.D.2d 1092, 407 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12194

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

DecidedJune 22, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 1092 (Tibodeau v. Salenger) 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

Tibodeau v. Salenger, 63 A.D.2d 1092, 407 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 4, 1978 in Ulster County, which granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars and denied plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses to the accident within defendant’s knowledge. In conformity with our decision in Hennessy v Benerofe (63 AD2d 779), the motion of plaintiffs for disclosure of eyewitnesses to the accident within the knowledge of the defendant was improperly denied. A party is entitled to the name of an active participant in the incident and, also, the names of eyewitnesses to the accident who are not strictly active participants (see CPLR 3101). Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to direct defendants to produce the [1093]*1093names and addresses of all witnesses to the accident, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 4, 1978 in Ulster County, which granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars and denied plaintiff’s motion for disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses to the accident within defendant’s knowledge. In conformity with our decision in Hennessy v Benerofe (63 AD2d 779), the motion of plaintiffs for disclosure of eyewitnesses to the accident within the knowledge of the defendant was improperly denied. A party is entitled to the name of an active participant in the incident and, also, the names of eyewitnesses to the accident who are not strictly active participants (see CPLR 3101). Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to direct defendants to produce the [1093]*1093names and addresses of all witnesses to the accident, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 1092, 407 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tibodeau-v-salenger-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack