Barker v. Barker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barker v. Barker

295 A.D.2d 151, 742 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930

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

DecidedJune 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 151 (Barker v. Barker) 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

Barker v. Barker, 295 A.D.2d 151, 742 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion°to preclude plaintiff from testifying at trial as either a party or a nonparty and, in the event that plaintiff is allowed to testify as a nonparty, to disqualify his coplaintiff’s attorney from representing her at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s motion to preclude plaintiff from testifying as a party at trial was properly denied. While plaintiff at one point indicated a willingness to discontinue, and a stipulation was prepared to that effect, the stipulation was neither signed by the attorneys for all the parties nor filed with the clerk of the court as required by CPLR 3217 (a) (2) in order to be effective (see, Millicent Bender, Inc. v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 144 AD2d 548; Noble v O’Leary, 165 Misc 2d 231). Appellant’s other claims are moot. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion°to preclude plaintiff from testifying at trial as either a party or a nonparty and, in the event that plaintiff is allowed to testify as a nonparty, to disqualify his coplaintiff’s attorney from representing her at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s motion to preclude plaintiff from testifying as a party at trial was properly denied. While plaintiff at one point indicated a willingness to discontinue, and a stipulation was prepared to that effect, the stipulation was neither signed by the attorneys for all the parties nor filed with the clerk of the court as required by CPLR 3217 (a) (2) in order to be effective (see, Millicent Bender, Inc. v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 144 AD2d 548; Noble v O’Leary, 165 Misc 2d 231). Appellant’s other claims are moot. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 151, 742 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-barker-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack