Case ID: nys_22/html/0136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GOLDMARK v. METROPOLITAN OPERA-HOUSE CO.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    February 17, 1893.)
    Deposition—Suppression—Evasive Answers on Cross-Examination.
    A deposition will be suppressed where it appears, from the answers given by the witness on cross-examination, that he willfully and knowingly refuses to answer the cross questions fully and fairly.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Leo Goldmark against the Metropolitan Opera-House Company. From an order denying a motion to suppress a deposition, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.
    Olin, Rives & Montgomery, (George Austin Morrison, Jr., and Stephin H. Olin, of counsel,) for appellant.
    • Dittenhoefer & Gerber, (I. M. Dittenhoefer, of counsel,) ior respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It is apparent from an examination of the answers of the witness to the cross interrogatories that there was a deliberate refusal to fairly and fully answer the questions propounded; and this, not by way of mistake, but willfully, and with knowledge that the answers were not as full and complete as required. Under these circumstances we think it is the duty of the court to suppress the commission, and to leave the party who desires to avail himself of the testimony of the assignor of his claim to such relief as he may procure upon an application for a new commission at the special term. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to suppress the commission granted, with $10 costs.