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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 11, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

295 A.D.2d 151 (Barker v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related