Wapnick v. Putterman

• Decision Date: 03 January 1972
• Citation: 329 N.Y.S.2d 371,38 A.D.2d 720
• Parties: Harold WAPNICK, Respondent, v. H. PUTTERMAN et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 371

329 N.Y.S.2d 371

38 A.D.2d 720

Harold WAPNICK, Respondent, v. H. PUTTERMAN et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Jan. 3, 1972.

Harold Wapnick, pro se.

Bertram H. Siegeltuch, New York City, for appellants.

Before MUNDER, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, SHAPIRO and GULOTTA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action by an employee to recover damages for wrongful discharge, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 14, 1971, as, in granting their motion for a protective order, pursuant to CPLR 3103, limited said relief only as to witnesses and directed (1) that each of the defendant partners be examined seriatim upon a weekly schedule and (2) that certain client worksheets be produced and their relevancy be determined by the Justice presiding at Special Term, Part II.

Order modified, by (1) striking from the first decretal paragraph the words 'to the extent examination is limited to defendants only', which immediately follow the provision that the motion is 'granted', and substituting therefor the words 'to the extent of limiting the examination before trial to a single defendant partner with knowledge of the facts and who shall be chosen by the partnership, the examination to be held' (at Special Term); (2) striking from the first decretal paragraph the words 'on separate dates' and substituting therefor the words 'without prejudice to an appropriate application, after the close of the examination, to examine any other persons...