Vasquez v. East River Day Camp, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Vasquez v. East River Day Camp, Inc.

17 Misc. 2d 385, 186 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3959

DecidedApril 8, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 385 (Vasquez v. East River Day Camp, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vasquez v. East River Day Camp, Inc., 17 Misc. 2d 385, 186 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3959 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Aron Steuer, J.

Motion to examine defendant in order to frame a complaint. The affidavits show that defendant operates a day camp; that the infant plaintiff, a child eight years of age, fell while in the custody of defendant’s servants and that the child does not know the location of the place where she fell. There is no claim that the child is ignorant of the manner in which she fell and the other circumstances. These would be sufficient to frame a complaint.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant is under a duty to disclose the facts because plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by showing delivery to defendant in a sound condition and return in a damaged condition. If this theory based on apparent similarity of legal relationship of a child to merchandise entrusted to a bailee could be considered sound it would be even simpler to draw a complaint.

The real reason for this application is that plaintiff’s attorney suspects that there may be a cause of action against the city and wants the information to start such an action. The purpose may be legitimate but there is no provision in our law for examing a defendant in order to get information which may result in a cause of action against a third party.

Motion denied.

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

Aron Steuer, J.

Motion to examine defendant in order to frame a complaint. The affidavits show that defendant operates a day camp; that the infant plaintiff, a child eight years of age, fell while in the custody of defendant’s servants and that the child does not know the location of the place where she fell. There is no claim that the child is ignorant of the manner in which she fell and the other circumstances. These would be sufficient to frame a complaint.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant is under a duty to disclose the facts because plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by showing delivery to defendant in a sound condition and return in a damaged condition. If this theory based on apparent similarity of legal relationship of a child to merchandise entrusted to a bailee could be considered sound it would be even simpler to draw a complaint.

The real reason for this application is that plaintiff’s attorney suspects that there may be a cause of action against the city and wants the information to start such an action. The purpose may be legitimate but there is no provision in our law for examing a defendant in order to get information which may result in a cause of action against a third party.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 385, 186 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-east-river-day-camp-inc-nysupct-1959.