Murrain v. Wilson Line, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
The order for examination is too indefinite in that it requires an officer “ having knowledge ” to attend and requires “ such relevant ” books and records to be produced. *180The order should specify the officer to be examined and the documents required.
The requirement for a bill of particulars of the defense of contributory negligence is also improper in this case. There are no allegations that plaintiffs are without knowledge of the facts surrounding the accident, or that the information with reference to the accident is wholly in the possession of the defendant. It is only under such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Egan v. Tishman & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- Dunson v. KirtlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
3Cited by8 opinions
- Deutsch v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1951
- Quashnofsky v. Davies Building, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1956
- Bruzzano v. City of New YorkCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
- Captan v. Associated Transport, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Grantz v. Home Owners' Loan Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.