Delafield & Delafield v. duPont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delafield & Delafield v. duPont

37 A.D.2d 517, 321 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916

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

DecidedJune 3, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 517 (Delafield & Delafield v. duPont) 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

Delafield & Delafield v. duPont, 37 A.D.2d 517, 321 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 31, 1971, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion and the interest of justice, and defendant-appellant duPont’s motion granted to vacate plaintiff-respondent’s statement of readiness and the preference for trial theretofore granted to plaintiff-respondent. Appellant duPont shall recover of plaintiff-respondent $30 costs and disbursement of this appeal. It was an inappropriate exercise of discretion to have accorded a trial preference to plaintiff in the face of plaintiff’s own failure, continued as late as the time this appeal was heard, to produce, at the examination of plaintiff’s employees, certain documents properly sought to be discovered. In these circumstances, the parties should not have been ordered to trial before defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to complete pretrial procedures. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 31, 1971, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion and the interest of justice, and defendant-appellant duPont’s motion granted to vacate plaintiff-respondent’s statement of readiness and the preference for trial theretofore granted to plaintiff-respondent. Appellant duPont shall recover of plaintiff-respondent $30 costs and disbursement of this appeal. It was an inappropriate exercise of discretion to have accorded a trial preference to plaintiff in the face of plaintiff’s own failure, continued as late as the time this appeal was heard, to produce, at the examination of plaintiff’s employees, certain documents properly sought to be discovered. In these circumstances, the parties should not have been ordered to trial before defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to complete pretrial procedures. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 517, 321 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delafield-delafield-v-dupont-nyappdiv-1971.