Amoros v. Martelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amoros v. Martelli

56 A.D.2d 751, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10998

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 751 (Amoros v. Martelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amoros v. Martelli, 56 A.D.2d 751, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 7, 1976, insofar as it granted respondent-defendants’ cross motion for an order directing the examination before trial of the plaintiff and all codefendants, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondents Martelli and Slattery Assoc. While the failure of the respondents to appear at the first scheduled examination may have been due to attorney error, the inconvenience to the appellants in having to appear for another examination is overbalanced by the prejudice to the respondents were they deprived of it. We find no abuse of the Special Term’s continuing discretionary power to direct another examination (Rose v Rose, 282 App Div 1028). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Capozzoli, Lane, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 7, 1976, insofar as it granted respondent-defendants’ cross motion for an order directing the examination before trial of the plaintiff and all codefendants, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondents Martelli and Slattery Assoc. While the failure of the respondents to appear at the first scheduled examination may have been due to attorney error, the inconvenience to the appellants in having to appear for another examination is overbalanced by the prejudice to the respondents were they deprived of it. We find no abuse of the Special Term’s continuing discretionary power to direct another examination (Rose v Rose, 282 App Div 1028). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Capozzoli, Lane, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 751, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amoros-v-martelli-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack