TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morris v. E. A. Laboratories, Inc.

Richard Morris v. E. A. Laboratories, Inc.

Morris v. E. A. Lab'ys, Inc., 263 A.D. 540 (1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 16, 1942
Citations
263 A.D. 54033 N.Y.S.2d 4641942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6938

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a consequence of being struck by an elevator in a building.

(1) The examination in respect of identity of individuals with whom plaintiff dealt should have been granted. (Murray v. First Trust Company of Albany, 258 App. Div. 1007 .)

(2) The discovery and inspection of pertinent books, documents and papers should have been permitted in connection with the maintenance and control on the part of the defendant, the identity of the employees dealing with plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and the terms of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant ■under which plaintiff was performing work in the elevator shaft.

(3) The examination of the defendant under the circumstances herein should have been through its president, plant manager, plant foreman and elevator operator. (Loring v. Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, 247 App. Div. 809 ; Hoeve v. Driscoll Co., 244 id. 808.)

The order providing for the examination of the defendant should be modified on the law and the facts so as to provide for (a) examination of the defendant as to the identity of those employees responsible for the accident; (b) discovery and inspection of pertinent books, documents and papers in relation to maintenance and control of the elevator, etc., the agreement under which plaintiff was doing work for the defendant, and the identity of employees of the defendant with whom plaintiff had. dealings on the date of the accident; and (c) examination of the defendant by its president, plant manager, plant foreman and elevator operator. As so modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant.

Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Order modified on the law and the facts so as to provide for (a) examination of the defendant as to the identity of those employees responsible for the accident; (b) discovery and inspection of pertinent books, documents and papers in relation to maintenance and control of the elevator, etc., the agreement under which plaintiff was doing work for the defendant, and the identity of employees of the defendant with whom plaintiff had dealings on the date of the accident; and (c) examination of the defendant by its president, plant manager, plant foreman and elevator operator. As so modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant.

Settle order on notice within five days.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1949: 11951: 11956: 11958: 11960: 11961: 11963: 11965: 11966: 119492026peak 1949 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Spano v. Fralick48 Misc. 2d 375 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
  2. O'Dea v. City of Albany27 A.D.2d 11 (1966)
  3. Kaye v. Penguin Cab Corp.40 Misc. 2d 476 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)
  4. Milberg v. Lehrich2 A.D.2d 861 (1956)
  5. Latz v. Castricone13 Misc. 2d 119 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
  6. Buckwalter v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.29 Misc. 2d 93 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Most recent

  1. O'Dea v. City of Albany27 A.D.2d 11 (1966)
  2. Spano v. Fralick48 Misc. 2d 375 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
  3. Kaye v. Penguin Cab Corp.40 Misc. 2d 476 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)
  4. Buckwalter v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.29 Misc. 2d 93 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
  5. Giamberdino v. Mileo10 A.D.2d 814 (1960)
  6. Latz v. Castricone13 Misc. 2d 119 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Loring v. Dime Sav. Bank of Brooklyn, 247 A.D. 809 (1936) 2
Murray v. First Trust Co., 258 A.D. 1007 (1940) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list