Milberg v. Lehrich
| Decision Date | 22 October 1956 |
| Citation | 156 N.Y.S.2d 74,2 A.D.2d 861 |
| Parties | Irene MILBERG, as administratrix of the chattels and credits of Lena Kastle, deceased, respondent, v. Dr. William LEHRICH, individually and doing business as Parkway Nursing Home and Parkway Nursing Home, Inc., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sidney N. Zipser, New York City, for appellant. Howard E. Levitt, Bernard Bernstein, New York City, on the brief.
David Farber, New York City, for respondent. Irving Choban, Brooklyn, on the brief.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the appeals are from an order dated April 25, 1956, insofar as it requires appellants to produce certain documents and records at an examination before trial and from an order dated June 22, 1956, directing them to furnish to the attorney for the respondent the 'last known name and address' of a former employee of the appellants, who was present and on duty at the nursing home at the time of the accident complained of.
Order dated April 25, 1956 modified by striking from the third ordering paragraph the words 'death register' and 'non medical record'. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.
There is no showing that these records are material to the issues on which the examination is to be had.
Order dated June 22, 1956, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Although a party will not as a general rule be compelled to disclose the names of the witnesses by whom he intends to prove his case, Lambert v. Dwyer, 245 App.Div. 553, 283 N.Y.S. 64; Martyn v. Braun, 270 App.Div. 768, 59 N.Y.S.2d 588, the rule has its exceptions. One of them is that a party is entitled to be informed as to the identity of the witness employed by his adversary if the witness participated in, or was responsible for, the accident complained of. Morris v. E. A. Laboratories, Inc., 263 App.Div. 540, 33 N.Y.S.2d 464; Gutley v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 274 App.Div. 1061, 85 N.Y.S.2d 921. On consideration of the record we are of the opinion that the witness, whose identity appellants have been directed to disclose, falls within that category.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutherford v. Albany Medical Center Hospital
...415; Kandel v. Tocher, 22 A.D.2d 513, 256 N.Y.S.2d 898, supra; Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A.D.2d 447, 256 N.Y.S.2d 358; Milberg v. Lehrich, 2 A.D.2d 861, 156 N.Y.S.2d 74; Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., 45 Misc.2d 1006, 258 N.Y.S.2d 573; Walker v. Erie-Lackawanna R. R. Co., 43 Misc.2d 1098, 252 N.Y.......
-
Spano v. Fralick
...464 (Second Dep't. 1942); Gutley v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 274 App.Div. 1061, 85 N.Y.S.2d 921 (Second Dep't. 1949); Milberg v. Lehrich, 2 A.D.2d 861, 156 N.Y.S.2d 74 (Second Dep't. 1956); (see Giamberdino v. Mileo, 10 A.D.2d 814(1), 197 N.Y.S.2d 873 (Fourth Dep't. 1960), (dissenting ...
-
Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor
...in which event his name and address were discoverable. (Pistana v. Pangburn, 2 A.D.2d 643, 151 N.Y.S.2d 742; Milberg v. Lehrich, 2 A.D.2d 861, 156 N.Y.S.2d 74.) The rationale for this exception was that the witness was "so closely related to the accident that his testimony (became) essentia......
-
Giamberdino v. Mileo
... ... E. A. Laboratories, Inc., 263 App.Div. 540, 33 N.Y.S.2d 464; Gutley v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 274 App.Div. 1061, 85 N.Y.S.2d 921.' Milberg v. Lehrich, 2 A.D.2d 861, 156 N.Y.S.2d 74, 75. It is not known to the plaintiffs or to the court whether the person who repaired the brakes was an ... ...