Happell v. Genoese
New York Supreme Court
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
- Redfield v. National Petroleum Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Valentine Dolls, Inc. v. McMillanNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. RomNew York Supreme Court · 1940
- Glass v. CracovanerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Kagan v. GairNew York Supreme Court · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lloyd Capital Corp. v. BehrmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986