Watkins v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watkins v. City of New York

211 A.D.2d 544, 621 N.Y.S.2d 72

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 544 (Watkins v. City of New York) 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

Watkins v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 544, 621 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about February 18, 1994, which directed defendant New York City Transit Authority to produce three of its police officers [545]*545and a railroad porter for examinations before trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendants’ contention that the IAS Court abused its discretion in ordering the deposition of additional witnesses, including three Transit Authority police officers who assisted plaintiffs on the night of the attack against them. Notwithstanding that those sought to be deposed may not have witnessed the attack on plaintiffs, their testimony concerning matters occurring both before and after the attack is relevant and material (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 407). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about February 18, 1994, which directed defendant New York City Transit Authority to produce three of its police officers [545]*545and a railroad porter for examinations before trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendants’ contention that the IAS Court abused its discretion in ordering the deposition of additional witnesses, including three Transit Authority police officers who assisted plaintiffs on the night of the attack against them. Notwithstanding that those sought to be deposed may not have witnessed the attack on plaintiffs, their testimony concerning matters occurring both before and after the attack is relevant and material (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 407). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 544, 621 N.Y.S.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack