Carney v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carney v. New York Telephone Co.

158 A.D.2d 443, 551 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 443 (Carney v. New York Telephone 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

Carney v. New York Telephone Co., 158 A.D.2d 443, 551 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

We find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by directing R.F. McCahey, an employee of the defendant New York Telephone Company, to appear for an examination before trial, in contravention of a written stipulation entered into between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to "waive all further depositions of New York Telephone Company”.

The record contains no evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake or other factors which might warrant the vacatur of the stipulation (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224). Moreover, the plaintiffs accepted the benefits provided under the stipulation when they deposed another employee, who was produced by New York Telephone Company, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ agreement. Under the circumstances, there was no valid reason to vacate the stipulation or to relieve the plaintiffs from their promises and obligations thereunder (see, Saks v Rodney Hous. Corp., 84 AD2d 832). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

We find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by directing R.F. McCahey, an employee of the defendant New York Telephone Company, to appear for an examination before trial, in contravention of a written stipulation entered into between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to "waive all further depositions of New York Telephone Company”.

The record contains no evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake or other factors which might warrant the vacatur of the stipulation (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224). Moreover, the plaintiffs accepted the benefits provided under the stipulation when they deposed another employee, who was produced by New York Telephone Company, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ agreement. Under the circumstances, there was no valid reason to vacate the stipulation or to relieve the plaintiffs from their promises and obligations thereunder (see, Saks v Rodney Hous. Corp., 84 AD2d 832). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 443, 551 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carney-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack