Barnett v. DeMian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnett v. DeMian

207 A.D.2d 693, 616 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8822

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 693 (Barnett v. DeMian) 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

Barnett v. DeMian, 207 A.D.2d 693, 616 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered on February 14, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reversing the denial of defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue, and the motion is granted, without costs.

The court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness inasmuch as the statement of readiness incorrectly states that all necessary discovery had been completed or waived (see, Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176).

It is conceded that the deposition of plaintiff by defendant has not been taken. Plaintiff filed the note of issue five weeks before the expiration of the court-ordered deadline to take plaintiff’s deposition. Under these circumstances, denial of the motion is an abuse of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered on February 14, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reversing the denial of defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue, and the motion is granted, without costs.

The court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness inasmuch as the statement of readiness incorrectly states that all necessary discovery had been completed or waived (see, Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176).

It is conceded that the deposition of plaintiff by defendant has not been taken. Plaintiff filed the note of issue five weeks before the expiration of the court-ordered deadline to take plaintiff’s deposition. Under these circumstances, denial of the motion is an abuse of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 693, 616 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-demian-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack