Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

21 A.D.2d 670, 250 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3693
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

21 A.D.2d 670 (Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lubicz v. Rosen
54 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)