From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HEIT WEISENTHAL, INC. v. LICHT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1926
218 App. Div. 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

November, 1926.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.

Present — Clarke, P.J., Dowling, Finch, McAvoy and Martin, JJ. In each case: Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice.


This court has consistently held that the claim that an examination before trial ought not to be had because it might result in compelling the witness to give evidence against himself, is not a proper ground for denying the examination. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is a personal right and must be claimed at the time the questions are asked. ( Niehoff v. Star Co., 134 App. Div. 473; Bioren v. Canadian Mines Co., 140 id. 523; Peterson v. Fowler, 143 id. 282; Ryan v. Reagan, 46 id. 590.) The orders appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

HEIT WEISENTHAL, INC. v. LICHT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1926
218 App. Div. 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

HEIT WEISENTHAL, INC. v. LICHT

Case Details

Full title:HEIT WEISENTHAL, INC., Appellant, v. GUSTAVE LICHT, Respondent. HEIT…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1926

Citations

218 App. Div. 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Citing Cases

United Industrial Syndicate, Inc. v. Weismann

Insofar as the order appealed from allows the examination of defendants Weismann, Devine and Frankenstein, it…

Matter of Piloff v. Lipson

The possible danger of being asked criminally incriminating questions cannot properly be raised in this…