TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

King v. Liotti

Irene M. King, as Administratrix of the Estate of Donald A. King v. Anthony Liotti, Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Tami

King v. Liotti, 190 Misc. 672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
October 1, 1947
Judges
Kadien
Citations
190 Misc. 67276 N.Y.S.2d 981947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3541

Opinion of the Court — Kadien

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

Kadien, J.

Motion to examine the defendants before trial granted as prayed for with the exception that all language following the word “ defendants ” on the sixth line of item “ 2 ” will be deleted. The claim of privilege against self-incriminatian is no ground for denying a motion for the examination of *673 a party before trial. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is a personal right which must be claimed at the time when the questions are asked. (Heit & Weisenthal, Inc., v. Licht, 218 App. Div. 753 .) This privilege may be claimed at the examination before trial as in the ca^e of an examination at the trial. (Yomato Trading Co. v. Brown, 27 Hun 248 ; Matter of Siegel v. Crawford, 266 App. Div. 878 , affd. 292 N. Y. 651 .)

How later courts describe this case

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

1948: 11958: 11965: 119482026peak 1948 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States ex rel. Laino v. Warden of Wallkill Prison246 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  2. In re Follett's Petition172 F. Supp. 304 (S.D. Tex. 1958)
  3. In re the Accounting of Security Trust Co.192 Misc. 385 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1948)

Most recent

  1. United States ex rel. Laino v. Warden of Wallkill Prison246 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  2. In re Follett's Petition172 F. Supp. 304 (S.D. Tex. 1958)
  3. In re the Accounting of Security Trust Co.192 Misc. 385 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1948)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Heit & Weisenthal, Inc. v. Light, 218 A.D. 753 (1926) 13
Siegel v. Crawford, 55 N.E.2d 516 (N.Y. 1944) 12
Siegel v. Crawford, 266 A.D. 878 (1943) 9

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