At the close of plaintiff's pre-trial examination of. defendant corporation's employee on the question of failure to make delivery of merchandise pursuant to certain contracts, attorney for defendant began to cross-examine. Plaintiff objected to this procedure but permitted the cross-examination to continue, reserving his right to make application to the court to strike out the testimony. Held, testimony stricken. There should be no cross-examination in a pre-trial examination except for the limited purpose of clarifying an answer given on direct examination, and cross-examination to elicit additional information to that already adduced by the moving party or to give a version of the whole transaction from the standpoint of the party being examined is improper. American Worcestershire Sauce Co. v. Armour & Co., 194 Misc. 745, 87 N.Y.S. (2d) 738 (1949).
Daniel A. Isaacson,
DISCOVERY-ORAL EXAMINATION-RIGHT TO, AND SCOPE OF, CROSS-EXAMINATION UNDER NEW YORK AND FEDERAL PROCEDURE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol48/iss4/15