Legal Opinion

Dimicelli v. Marcellette

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1971PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJames H. Boomer, J.

Defendants move to examine before trial a person who is not a party to this action. The motion may be granted if the court “ determines that there are adequate special circumstances.” (CPLR 3101 subd. [a], par. [4].)

The plaintiff, a passenger in an automobile owned and driven by her husband, was injured when the husband’s automobile collided with the defendants’ automobile. The person whose examination is sought is the husband of the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney, in opposition to the motion, cites Risi v. Ackerley (24 Misc 2d 78) which holds that the above facts do not constitute “…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Marie Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  2. First National City Bank v. ValentineNew York Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Mull v. StreakerNew York Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Risi v. AckerleyNew York Supreme Court · 1960

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Personale v. HixonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API