From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heidell v. George A. Murray Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1938
255 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

October 14, 1938.


Action for damages for personal injuries. Resettled order denying plaintiff's motion for the examination of two witnesses before trial reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs; the examination to proceed on five days' notice. Both Clawson and Lent are material witnesses. Their relationship to the defendant bank and their claimed attitude prior to the bringing on of this motion establish that each of them is a reluctant, unwilling or hostile witness. Special circumstances within the meaning of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act have been made manifest and entitle the plaintiff to take the depositions. ( Bartlett v. Sanford, 244 App. Div. 722; La Bonte v. Long Island Railroad Co., 242 id. 844.) Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Heidell v. George A. Murray Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1938
255 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Heidell v. George A. Murray Company

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES HEIDELL, Appellant, v. GEORGE A. MURRAY COMPANY, Defendant, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 14, 1938

Citations

255 App. Div. 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Lubitz v. Port of New York Auth

However, hostility alone is not sufficient to constitute a showing of other "special circumstances" pursuant…

Zirn v. Bradley

Their relationship to the defendants and their alleged participation in the publications of which plaintiff…