Welch v. Minning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Welch v. Minning

282 A.D. 851, 125 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5184

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 851 (Welch v. Minning) 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

Welch v. Minning, 282 A.D. 851, 125 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except McCurn, P. J., and Piper, J., who dissent and vote for reversal and denial of the motion, in the following memorandum: We think the moving affidavit is defective and that the order should be reversed and the motion denied with leave to renew on proper papers. The affiant should state that he has interviewed the witnesses, or that he has read their affidavits or statements to show the source of his knowledge; if he cannot so state, the moving papers should include the affidavit of the person or persons who interviewed the witnesses, in support of the main affidavit. Here the allegation in the affidavit as to the source of deponent’s knowledge “ are statements of witnesses whom deponent has caused to be interviewed and the results of investigation, which deponent has caused to be made” with no showing that he has read any such statements or any report made by the investigator. (Appeal from an order granting a motion for change of place of trial from Genesee County to Madison County.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except McCurn, P. J., and Piper, J., who dissent and vote for reversal and denial of the motion, in the following memorandum: We think the moving affidavit is defective and that the order should be reversed and the motion denied with leave to renew on proper papers. The affiant should state that he has interviewed the witnesses, or that he has read their affidavits or statements to show the source of his knowledge; if he cannot so state, the moving papers should include the affidavit of the person or persons who interviewed the witnesses, in support of the main affidavit. Here the allegation in the affidavit as to the source of deponent’s knowledge “ are statements of witnesses whom deponent has caused to be interviewed and the results of investigation, which deponent has caused to be made” with no showing that he has read any such statements or any report made by the investigator. (Appeal from an order granting a motion for change of place of trial from Genesee County to Madison County.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 851, 125 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-minning-nyappdiv-1953.