Legal Opinion

Gotthelf v. Hillcrest Lumber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 25, 1952PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeck, P. J.

The question on this appeal is whether, over the objection of a party being examined before trial, a mechanical recording device may be used to take down the testimony.

The objections are made that rule 129 of the Buies of Civil Practice, relating to the manner of taking testimony by deposition, requires the use of a stenographer, that the use of a recording machine is an infringement of the right of privacy, and that a machine is of questionable fitness for the purpose.

*669The machine involved in this proceeding is one of the well known and widely used disc recording devices. We can take judicial…

2Cited by17 opinions

  1. Rubino v. G. D. Searle & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Baron v. Kings-Suffolk Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Mosel v. Brookhaven Memorial HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  5. United States Steel Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API