Zunino-Altman, Inc. v. Hubert Warehouses, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zunino-Altman, Inc. v. Hubert Warehouses, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 829, 269 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295

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

DecidedMay 10, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 829 (Zunino-Altman, Inc. v. Hubert Warehouses, Inc.) 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

Zunino-Altman, Inc. v. Hubert Warehouses, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 829, 269 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on October 11, 1965, denying defendant’s motion for an order to take the deposition of two insurance companies, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with $15 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant. Plaintiff’s merchandise, while stored in defendant’s warehouse, was damaged by fire, and this action was brought to recover the damages. The two insurance companies defendant seeks to examine had issued policies of insurance covering plaintiff in respect of the property involved in the fire, and have paid plaintiff the adjusted loss. The action, accordingly, is for the benefit of the insurers as subrogees and they control its prosecution. Under these circumstances, and it being sufficiently shown that the insurers possess information material to the issues, the taking of their depositions pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [4]) is appropriate. No contention is made that the evidence sought is privileged matter, attorney’s work product, or material prepared for litigation. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager,-JJ.

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

Order entered on October 11, 1965, denying defendant’s motion for an order to take the deposition of two insurance companies, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with $15 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant. Plaintiff’s merchandise, while stored in defendant’s warehouse, was damaged by fire, and this action was brought to recover the damages. The two insurance companies defendant seeks to examine had issued policies of insurance covering plaintiff in respect of the property involved in the fire, and have paid plaintiff the adjusted loss. The action, accordingly, is for the benefit of the insurers as subrogees and they control its prosecution. Under these circumstances, and it being sufficiently shown that the insurers possess information material to the issues, the taking of their depositions pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [4]) is appropriate. No contention is made that the evidence sought is privileged matter, attorney’s work product, or material prepared for litigation. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager,-JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 829, 269 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zunino-altman-inc-v-hubert-warehouses-inc-nyappdiv-1966.