Legal Opinion
City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 12, 1952PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
The defendants have moved for an order permitting them, pursuant to the provisions of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, to take a deposition of Bertram D. Tallamy, Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York and Chairman of the New York Thruway Authority, a public corporation. Neither the State nor the Thruway Authority is a party to the action, Mr. Tallamy’s deposition being sought as that of a witness. The proposed witness appeared on the motion and persuaded the Special Term to deny the order upon the ground that there was no authority theréfor.
While we believe an order…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Bush Terminal Company v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Victor G. Bloede Co. v. J. P. Devine Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Rucker v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Friedman v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- City of Buffalo v. Hanna Furnace Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- People ex rel. Sillifant v. SheriffNew York Court of Appeals · 1959