Becker v. Sylvia Gordon N. D. Delivery Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. Sylvia Gordon N. D. Delivery Service

18 A.D.2d 929, 238 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 929 (Becker v. Sylvia Gordon N. D. Delivery Service) 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

Becker v. Sylvia Gordon N. D. Delivery Service, 18 A.D.2d 929, 238 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 2, 1962, which denied their motion to vacate plaintiffs’ notice to examine the defendant Howard before trial. Said notice was served after the filing by plaintiffs of their statement of readiness. [930]*930Order reversed, -without costs, and niiotion granted. In the absence of a prior order, granted on plaintiffs’ motion, permitting a pretrial examination despite the filing of their statement of readiness, the plaintiffs’ notice of such examination was unauthorized and must be ivacated (Springer v. Carlson, 11 A D 2d 1077). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 2, 1962, which denied their motion to vacate plaintiffs’ notice to examine the defendant Howard before trial. Said notice was served after the filing by plaintiffs of their statement of readiness. [930]*930Order reversed, -without costs, and niiotion granted. In the absence of a prior order, granted on plaintiffs’ motion, permitting a pretrial examination despite the filing of their statement of readiness, the plaintiffs’ notice of such examination was unauthorized and must be ivacated (Springer v. Carlson, 11 A D 2d 1077). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 929, 238 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-sylvia-gordon-n-d-delivery-service-nyappdiv-1963.