United States Fire Insurance v. Rockland Fire Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

United States Fire Insurance v. Rockland Fire Equipment Co.

227 A.D.2d 289, 642 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389

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

DecidedMay 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 289 (United States Fire Insurance v. Rockland Fire Equipment Co.) 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

United States Fire Insurance v. Rockland Fire Equipment Co., 227 A.D.2d 289, 642 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 16 and December 12, 1995, which directed plaintiff to produce an employee of its subrogor for examination before trial, and, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew and directed it "to produce the witness, under subpoena or otherwise”, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subrogation agreement between plaintiff and its subrogor, in which the subrogor agreed to cooperate fully with plaintiff in its prosecution of subrogation actions such as this, establishes plaintiff’s control over its subrogor’s employees for purposes of disclosure (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [1], [2]). Plaintiff’s minimal attempts to produce such an employee are insufficient to excuse its failure to do so. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 16 and December 12, 1995, which directed plaintiff to produce an employee of its subrogor for examination before trial, and, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew and directed it "to produce the witness, under subpoena or otherwise”, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subrogation agreement between plaintiff and its subrogor, in which the subrogor agreed to cooperate fully with plaintiff in its prosecution of subrogation actions such as this, establishes plaintiff’s control over its subrogor’s employees for purposes of disclosure (see, CPLR 3101 [a] [1], [2]). Plaintiff’s minimal attempts to produce such an employee are insufficient to excuse its failure to do so. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 289, 642 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fire-insurance-v-rockland-fire-equipment-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack