From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearson v. Pouthier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 18, 1969
33 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

September 18, 1969

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We recognize that recent decisions have liberalized the interpretation of the words "special circumstances" as contained in CPLR 3101 (subd. [a], par. [4]). There remains, however, the basic requirement that a party seeking such examination should make full disclosure so as to establish "a possible connection of the witness with the transactions involved, about which she would have special and exclusive knowledge." ( Courtland v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 6 A.D.2d 789.) This the defendant has failed to do.


Summaries of

Pearson v. Pouthier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 18, 1969
33 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Pearson v. Pouthier

Case Details

Full title:EVELYN PEARSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of DOROTHY BANAS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 18, 1969

Citations

33 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

Matter of Russo v. Hardy

The petitioner, the Department of Social Services, has special or exclusive knowledge of evidence in this…

Gates v. State of New York

The more liberal rules governing pretrial disclosure were obviously not intended to harass prospective…