Legal Opinion

Happell v. Genoese

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGeorge P. Stier, J.

Plaintiffs move to vacate a notice to examine before trial one Morton Bahr “ as an agent and employee of the plaintiffs and, or, as a hostile witness ”. Defendants cross-move to add the Communications Workers of America as a party to this proceeding.

The plaintiffs, in support of their motion, contend that Morton Bahr is not a party nor is he an agent or employee of a party within the meaning of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act or rule 121-a of the Buies of Civil Practice. Furthermore, if the notice seeks to examine Morton Bahr as a witness, it is deficient since it does not set forth the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Redfield v. National Petroleum Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  2. Valentine Dolls, Inc. v. McMillanNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  3. President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. RomNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Glass v. CracovanerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  5. Kagan v. GairNew York Supreme Court · 1958

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lloyd Capital Corp. v. BehrmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API