Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

21 A.D.2d 670, 250 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3693

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

DecidedMay 26, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 670 (Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.) 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

Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 21 A.D.2d 670, 250 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 10, 1964, denying defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order in a products liability ease, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The notice to take defendants’ oral testimony before trial on February 5, 1964, was served on January 23, 1964. Defendant-appellant had ample time to move for a protective order which would have automatically stayed the examination. (CPLR 3103, subd. [b].) However, it sought and obtained an adjournment of the examination pursuant to the notice without reservation of any right to object. “By custom and practice, adjournments of examinations before trial, like [671]*671extensions of time to serve answers, contain or should contain reservation of rights to question the regularity or validity of a notice of examination”. (Mossew v. To Market, 3 A D 2d 189, 190.) Where no reservation has been made in a stipulation for an adjournment of an examination before trial, a motion to modify the notice of examination must be denied. (Mossew v. To Market, supra.) Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 10, 1964, denying defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order in a products liability ease, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The notice to take defendants’ oral testimony before trial on February 5, 1964, was served on January 23, 1964. Defendant-appellant had ample time to move for a protective order which would have automatically stayed the examination. (CPLR 3103, subd. [b].) However, it sought and obtained an adjournment of the examination pursuant to the notice without reservation of any right to object. “By custom and practice, adjournments of examinations before trial, like [671]*671extensions of time to serve answers, contain or should contain reservation of rights to question the regularity or validity of a notice of examination”. (Mossew v. To Market, 3 A D 2d 189, 190.) Where no reservation has been made in a stipulation for an adjournment of an examination before trial, a motion to modify the notice of examination must be denied. (Mossew v. To Market, supra.) Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 670, 250 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-colgate-palmolive-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack