Condon v. National Surety Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Condon v. National Surety Corp.

18 A.D.2d 907, 237 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 907 (Condon v. National Surety Corp.) 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

Condon v. National Surety Corp., 18 A.D.2d 907, 237 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 10, 1962, denying motion of the third-party plaintiff to examine before trial the third-party defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to third-party plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. Under the liberalized rules in respect of depositions before trial, the third-party plaintiff may examine the third-party defendant on material issues. (Matter of Sakel, 9 A D 2d 763.) Paragraph 7 of the Special Rule for the Supreme Court in the Counties of Bronx and New York Requiring the Filing of a Statement of Readiness and [908]*908Regulating Calendar Practice Relative Thereto is not available to the third-party defendant because it was not a party to the action at the time of filing of the statement of readiness. Settle order on notice fixing a date for examination to proceed. Concur—-Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 10, 1962, denying motion of the third-party plaintiff to examine before trial the third-party defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to third-party plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. Under the liberalized rules in respect of depositions before trial, the third-party plaintiff may examine the third-party defendant on material issues. (Matter of Sakel, 9 A D 2d 763.) Paragraph 7 of the Special Rule for the Supreme Court in the Counties of Bronx and New York Requiring the Filing of a Statement of Readiness and [908]*908Regulating Calendar Practice Relative Thereto is not available to the third-party defendant because it was not a party to the action at the time of filing of the statement of readiness. Settle order on notice fixing a date for examination to proceed. Concur—-Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 907, 237 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/condon-v-national-surety-corp-nyappdiv-1963.