Arcieri v. McNiff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arcieri v. McNiff

47 A.D.2d 615, 364 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8764

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 615 (Arcieri v. McNiff) 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

Arcieri v. McNiff, 47 A.D.2d 615, 364 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 18, 1974, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to remand to the Supreme Court, New York County, in order that an additional reasonable period of time be fixed to permit defendant Abrams to complete disclosure proceedings, and as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we agree that the action should not be stricken from the Trial Calendar, and that a severance would be inappropriate, since defendant Abrams has only recently been joined in this action, although it has been pending for over three and one-half years, he should be accorded additional time to have and complete disclosure proceedinges. (See Franklin Nat. Bank v. Siegler, 29 A D 2d 988.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Markewich, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 18, 1974, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to remand to the Supreme Court, New York County, in order that an additional reasonable period of time be fixed to permit defendant Abrams to complete disclosure proceedings, and as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we agree that the action should not be stricken from the Trial Calendar, and that a severance would be inappropriate, since defendant Abrams has only recently been joined in this action, although it has been pending for over three and one-half years, he should be accorded additional time to have and complete disclosure proceedinges. (See Franklin Nat. Bank v. Siegler, 29 A D 2d 988.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Markewich, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 615, 364 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcieri-v-mcniff-nyappdiv-1975.