Willis v. Foster Wheeler Corp.
Opinion of the Court
This motion has been withdrawn against Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company. Petitioner has sufficiently shown that he possesses a prima facie cause of action but that he is ignorant of the identity of the corporation liable therefor. He is accordingly entitled to an examination for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the prospective defendant or defendants (Matter of Roland [DeAk], 10 A D 2d 263, 264; Peterman v. Schpelman, 274 App. Div. 901). He is also entitled to the production of all material or relevant books, papers and records, in the possession or control of the examinee, for use in accordance with section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. There is, however, no need shown, at this time, for a discovery and inspection, and it is accordingly unnecessary to decide whether petitioner is in any event entitled to such relief. It is to be noted that section 324 of the Civil Practice Act, which authorizes a discovery and inspection, is limited to compelling a party “ to an action pending ” to make such discovery and inspection (see, also, Rules Civ. Prac., rule 140). Nor has any necessity been shown to exist at this time for any examination of all the respondents who remain (after the withdrawal of the motion as against Atlantic Gulf and Pacific), or for the additional relief sought in the notice of motion.
The motion is granted to the extent of directing petitioner’s former employer, Foster Wheeler Corporation, to produce for examination an officer, agent or employee having knowledge as to who was responsible for the injury to petitioner from the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.