Barnett v. Ferguson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnett v. Ferguson

29 A.D.2d 525, 285 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 525 (Barnett v. Ferguson) 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. Ferguson, 29 A.D.2d 525, 285 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 7, 1967, granting plaintiff’s motion for a further examination before trial of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts' and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiff examined defendant on July 15, 1965, and served and filed a statement of readiness on February 24, 1966. No special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances have been shown so as to justify relaxation of the court rule prohibiting disclosure proceedings after the action was placed on the Trial Calendar (Price v. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204), and it'is immaterial that the examination of defendant was incomplete at the time that the readiness statement was served and filed. (Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A D 2d 436.) Moreover, the record demonstrates that plaintiff was guilty of “inexcusable loches” in seeking a further examination (Mallm V. Kossin, 25 A D 2d 509). Order entered June 23, 1967, unanimosuly affirmed without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 7, 1967, granting plaintiff’s motion for a further examination before trial of defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts' and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiff examined defendant on July 15, 1965, and served and filed a statement of readiness on February 24, 1966. No special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances have been shown so as to justify relaxation of the court rule prohibiting disclosure proceedings after the action was placed on the Trial Calendar (Price v. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204), and it'is immaterial that the examination of defendant was incomplete at the time that the readiness statement was served and filed. (Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A D 2d 436.) Moreover, the record demonstrates that plaintiff was guilty of “inexcusable loches” in seeking a further examination (Mallm V. Kossin, 25 A D 2d 509). Order entered June 23, 1967, unanimosuly affirmed without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 525, 285 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-ferguson-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack