Opinion

In re Klein

  • 309 N.Y. 474
  • 131 N.E.2d 888
  • 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 1064
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Jan 12, 1956
Status
Published
Author
Desmond
On the bench
Conway, Desmond
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.7%

The opinion

Desmond, J.

(dissenting). This simple procedural statute should be “ liberally construed ” as the Civil Practice Act itself commands (§§ 2, 3). No public policy requires that this law be so straitly limited in its coverage as to deprive it of its useful function of facilitating the taking of testimony in this State for use in judicial proceedings pending elsewhere (see Matter of Roberts, 214 App. Div. 271, 275 ). It was our own Legislature, not some foreign body, which, so long ago as 1867 (see L. 1867, ch. 68, and, even earlier, Rev. Stat. of N. Y., pt. Ill, ch. VII, tit. Ill, art. IV, and Eldridge v. Chapman, 13 Abb. Prac. 68, n.), provided, without qualification or exception, that a party to an action, suit or special proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in a court without the state, either in the United States or in a foreign country might thus obtain testimony in this State. Such inclusive and sweeping language as “ action, suit, or special proceeding, civil or criminal ’ ’ must have been intended to cover any and every kind of foreign judicial proceeding, whatever its name or special features. Our sole inquiry is, therefore, as to *487 whether the proceedings pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey under chapter 6 of title 40 of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey are judicial. Surely, for that we can take New Jersey’s answer, and that answer is in the affirmative (Massett Bldg. Co. v. Bennett, 4 N. J. 53; Matter of Wellhofer, 10 N. J. 321; Tiene v. Jersey City, 13 N. J. 478; Matter of Tiene, 19 N. J. 149). Confirmation thereof is available from the fact .that our own State has, under section 4 of the General Municipal Law, an investigative procedure, “ unmistakably judicial ” (see Matter of Richardson, 247 N. Y. 401, 412, 413 ), which is generally similar to the New Jersey procedures we are here examining.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Froessel, Yaw Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur with Cowway, Ch. J.; Desmowd, J., dissents in an opinion in which Fuld, J., concurs; Dye, J., taking no part.

Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.