Legal Opinion

New York Telephone Co. v. City of New York

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

Decided October 30, 1936PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The defendant-appellant may not be examined through employees who are no longer in its service. (McGowan v. Eastman, 271 N. Y. 195; Cocolicchio v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 248 App. Div. 196.) In lieu also of producing its president and vice-president for examination, the defendant-appellant may produce Fred W. Stiefel, its chief engineer, since he is shown to be the person familiar with the facts.

It is impossible to determine from the complaint whether all the items concerning which an examination is sought will be material. We are, however, of the opinion that the plaintiff is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McGowan v. EastmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  2. Cocolicchio v. Emigrant Industrial Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States Overseas Airlines, Inc. v. CoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  2. Parsons v. MossNew York Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Barry v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1964
  4. Lautum Realty Corp. v. Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1939
  5. Lichtenstadter v. Asia InstituteNew York Supreme Court · 1956

1 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