Legal Opinion

Schimmel v. Spigal

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1956PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnthony J. Di Giovanna, J.

Motion to vacate a notice by one defendant to examine a codefendant is granted. It is deplorable that so much division of judicial opinion exists concerning the right of one defendant to examine a codefendant where neither asserts affirmative claims of relief against the other. *407It might be helpful to have a further codification of rules respecting these examinations by the rule-making body. However, in this court’s opinion, an examination before trial should not be permitted where the use of the deposition will be unavailable to the moving party. Depositions taken in examinations before trial…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pedersen v. Board of Education of Central School District No. 2New York Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Cusumanu v. Pitzer Trucking Co.New York Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API