Legal Opinion
Hartley v. Ring
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 7, 1969PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCharles Hargett, J.
This motion calls upon the court to consider the question of disclosure of witnesses ’ identity by the parties to an action in the light of Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. (21 NY 2d 403).
In Allen, the Court of Appeals held (p. 406) that the words “ material and necessary ”, as contained in CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]), which provides that “ There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof ’ ’ should ‘ ‘ be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- McMahon v. Hayes-73rd Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1950
- Martyn v. BraunAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
- Gavin v. New York Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Rivera v. StewartNew York Supreme Court · 1966
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Zellman v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- Reisch v. J & L Holding Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1981
- Varner v. WinfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- Quirino v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Supreme Court · 1969
- Clamp v. BoldtNew York Supreme Court · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.