Legal Opinion
State v. Metz
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1997PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
David B. Saxe, J.
The key question posed by the motions before the court, which appears to be one of first impression, is whether testimonial evidence properly — but unilaterally — obtained by the State Attorney-General’s office may serve as the basis for a summary judgment motion despite the CPLR’s requirement that a person against whom deposition testimony is used must have been afforded the opportunity to be present or represented at the deposition (CPLR 3117 [a] [3]). As discussed below, this court finds plaintiff may use such evidence as a shield but not as a sword…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- S. J. Capelin Associates, Inc. v. Globe Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Feldsberg v. NitschkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. Federated Radio CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Drooker v. South Nassau Communities HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1998