From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PRESIDENT DIRECTORS OF MANHATTAN CO. v. ROM

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County
Dec 5, 1940
176 Misc. 200 (N.Y. Misc. 1940)

Opinion

December 5, 1940.

Henry J. Macklis, for the plaintiff.

Leiman Trace, for the defendants Rom.

Christmann, McKeon Hess, for the defendant Ridgewood Savings Bank.



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 A.D. 844.)

Motion to vacate denied.


Summaries of

PRESIDENT DIRECTORS OF MANHATTAN CO. v. ROM

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County
Dec 5, 1940
176 Misc. 200 (N.Y. Misc. 1940)
Case details for

PRESIDENT DIRECTORS OF MANHATTAN CO. v. ROM

Case Details

Full title:PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE MANHATTAN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ANNA ROM…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County

Date published: Dec 5, 1940

Citations

176 Misc. 200 (N.Y. Misc. 1940)
25 N.Y.S.2d 988

Citing Cases

President of the Manhattan Co. v. Rom

Action to set aside the transfer to defendant Frank W. Rom of a certain bank deposit by defendant Anna Rom.…

KAGAN v. GAIR

Section 299 of the Civil Practice Act relates to the service of a subpoena and the procedure for compelling…