About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 Cross-Examination on an Examination before Trial 1949

handle is hein.beal/csenentl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Cross-Examination on an Examination Before Trial By WILLIAm B. HERLANDS HERBERT S. HERLANDS May a party who has been examined before trial by the adverse party then be cross-examined by his own attorney as part of the pre-trial examination proceedings? To this practical question the courts have given conflicting answers. In Zeldman v. Electrolux, Inc. (161 Misc., 849, 292 N. Y. Supp., 116, Mun. Ct., Queens Co., 1936), Justice Morris held that the defendant, whose examination before trial was taken at the plaintiff's instance, had no right to be cross- examined by his own attorney at the conclusion of the plain- tiff's examination of the defendant. A contrary result was reached in Reliable Textile Co., Inc. v. Elk Dye Works, Inc. (177 Misc., 926, 32 N. Y. S., 2d, 438, Sup. Ct., N. Y. Co., 1941), where Supreme Court Justice Collins held that the defendant, who had been examined by the plaintiff before trial, was entitled to be cross-examined by his own attorney. This conflict was reviewed at length in Dworkow v. Bach- rack (193 Misc., 521, Sup. Ct., Kings Co., November 15, 1948), where Supreme Court Justice Walsh held that there was no such right of cross-examination. In the very recent case of American Worcestershire Sauce Co. v. Armour & Co. (vol. 121, N. Y. L. J., No. 37, February 23, 1949, p. 669, col. 5, Sup. Ct., N. Y. Co., Sp. T., II), Su- preme Court Justice Hecht, without reference to the three This article constitutes, with minor changes and additions, a re- print of an article published in three parts in the New York Law Journal on April 5, 6 and 7, 1949.