New York Supreme Court, 1940

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Rom

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Rom
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 5, 1940 · Hooley
176 Misc. 200; 25 N.Y.S.2d 988; 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2602

Counsel

Henry J. M'acklis, for the plaintiff., Leiman & Trace, for the defendants Rom., Christmann, McKeon & Hess, for the defendant Ridgewood Savings Bank.

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Rom

Opinion of the Court

Hooley, J.

The procedure herein was proper. If it was intended that section 290 of the Civil Practice Act should apply only in the case of the taking of the deposition of adverse parties, specific provision to that effect would have been inserted therein. However, as the section now reads, particularly when considered with section 299 of the Civil Practice Act, its meaning is clear. In so far as the merits are concerned, the plaintiff is entitled to the examination herein sought. The witness will undoubtedly be hostile and hence special circumstances are present. (La Bonte v. Long Island, Railroad Co., 242 App. Div. 844.)

Motion to vacate denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.