A pro se plaintiff who claimed that a moving company damaged her collection of Civil War newspapers to the tune of $3.9 million may not exclude the company's owner from depositions of his employees, a New York appellate panel has ruled. "New York law does not afford a pro se litigant additional benefits to the detriment of another party absent a reasonable explanation supported by the record," the panel held, reversing a Manhattan Supreme Court justice's order to bar the moving company's owner.
April 21, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A pro se plaintiff who claimed that a moving company damaged her collection of Civil War newspapers to the tune of $3.9 million may not exclude the company’s owner from depositions of his employees, a New York Appellate Division, 1st Department, panel has ruled.
The panel reversed an order issued by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer that had granted Leonor D�til Perez’s motion to bar Time Moving & Storage’s owner, Joseph Candella.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
