Constantino v. Newman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Constantino v. Newman

47 A.D.2d 626, 363 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8789

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 626 (Constantino v. Newman) 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

Constantino v. Newman, 47 A.D.2d 626, 363 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 14, 1974, which (1) granted defendant’s motion for a protective order as to plaintiffs’ notice to admit and (2) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a pretrial examination of an employee of defendant. Order modified by striking so much thereof as granted defendant’s motion and substituting therefor a position denying said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements .to appellants. While a protective order may be utilized to test the legitimacy of. a notice to admit pursuant to CPLR 3123 (see Epstein v. Oonsolidated Edison Go. of N. T., 31 A D 2d 746; Nader v. General Motors Corp., 53 Mise 2d 515, affd. 29 A D 2d 632), we believe that. it was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances herein to grant defendant’s motion. If defendant cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter requested in the notice to admit, he may set forth his reasons in a sworn statement (CPLR 3123, subd. [a]), Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs, with the following further memorandum: I fully concur in the above memorandum and I write only to point out that I have receded from the position I took in Schwartz v. Macrose

[627]*627Lbr. & Trim Co. (46 Misc 2d 202) that a notice to admit cannot be attacked prior to trial.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 14, 1974, which (1) granted defendant’s motion for a protective order as to plaintiffs’ notice to admit and (2) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a pretrial examination of an employee of defendant. Order modified by striking so much thereof as granted defendant’s motion and substituting therefor a position denying said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements .to appellants. While a protective order may be utilized to test the legitimacy of. a notice to admit pursuant to CPLR 3123 (see Epstein v. Oonsolidated Edison Go. of N. T., 31 A D 2d 746; Nader v. General Motors Corp., 53 Mise 2d 515, affd. 29 A D 2d 632), we believe that. it was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances herein to grant defendant’s motion. If defendant cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter requested in the notice to admit, he may set forth his reasons in a sworn statement (CPLR 3123, subd. [a]), Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs, with the following further memorandum: I fully concur in the above memorandum and I write only to point out that I have receded from the position I took in Schwartz v. Macrose

[627]*627Lbr. & Trim Co. (46 Misc 2d 202) that a notice to admit cannot be attacked prior to trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 626, 363 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constantino-v-newman-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack