Black v. Fisher Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Black v. Fisher Bros.

27 A.D.2d 836, 277 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 836 (Black v. Fisher Bros.) 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

Black v. Fisher Bros., 27 A.D.2d 836, 277 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 29,1966, reversed, without costs, and defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice for pretrial examination of defendants granted. In our opinion, plaintiff must be deemed to have waived his right to an examination before trial of defendants in view of his failure to serve a notice for such examination prior to the sixtieth day after he served a note of issue (Rules of this court, part 7, rule IX). Nor does the proffered excuse of “ oversight ” in failing to timely mail his examination notice constitute an “unusual and unanticipated” condition within the meaning of rule VII of part 7 of said rules (Byrnes v. Dan’s Taxi, 18 A D 2d 807; Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 29,1966, reversed, without costs, and defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice for pretrial examination of defendants granted. In our opinion, plaintiff must be deemed to have waived his right to an examination before trial of defendants in view of his failure to serve a notice for such examination prior to the sixtieth day after he served a note of issue (Rules of this court, part 7, rule IX). Nor does the proffered excuse of “ oversight ” in failing to timely mail his examination notice constitute an “unusual and unanticipated” condition within the meaning of rule VII of part 7 of said rules (Byrnes v. Dan’s Taxi, 18 A D 2d 807; Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 836, 277 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-fisher-bros-nyappdiv-1967.