Tice v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tice v. State

21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3181

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1964

DocketClaim No. M 6230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 974 (Tice v. State) 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

Tice v. State, 21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party, without prejudice to the right of the claimant to reapply for an examination of the witness Orser upon appropriate papers. Memorandum: It appeared for the first time upon the argument of the motion that the person sought to be examined was no longer in the employ of the State, therefore it is requisite that a new application be made showing the material and necessary facts for the examination of a witness as distinguished from an employee of the Stale. (Appeal from an order of Court of Claims which denied a motion to take the deposition of one S. M. Orser, former resident district engineer, [975]*975Department of Public Works, for Chautauqua County.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party, without prejudice to the right of the claimant to reapply for an examination of the witness Orser upon appropriate papers. Memorandum: It appeared for the first time upon the argument of the motion that the person sought to be examined was no longer in the employ of the State, therefore it is requisite that a new application be made showing the material and necessary facts for the examination of a witness as distinguished from an employee of the Stale. (Appeal from an order of Court of Claims which denied a motion to take the deposition of one S. M. Orser, former resident district engineer, [975]*975Department of Public Works, for Chautauqua County.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tice-v-state-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack