Di Carlo v. Guttman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Carlo v. Guttman

9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 684 (Di Carlo v. Guttman) 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

Di Carlo v. Guttman, 9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order as on reargument adhered to the original decision denying appellants’ motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial. The order granted each party the right to examine the other, with the right to appellants to examine first. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The notice of examination was untimely for failure to comply with our special rule (Rules App. Div. [2d Dept.], special rule, eff. Jan. 15, 1957) and for failure to explain the delay. However, appellants’ request to examine the adverse parties before trial long after they filed their statement of readiness was also untimely. The discretion exercised in favor of appellants in granting them the untimely examination justifies the discretion exercised against them. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of an order as on reargument adhered to the original decision denying appellants’ motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial. The order granted each party the right to examine the other, with the right to appellants to examine first. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The notice of examination was untimely for failure to comply with our special rule (Rules App. Div. [2d Dept.], special rule, eff. Jan. 15, 1957) and for failure to explain the delay. However, appellants’ request to examine the adverse parties before trial long after they filed their statement of readiness was also untimely. The discretion exercised in favor of appellants in granting them the untimely examination justifies the discretion exercised against them. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 684, 191 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-carlo-v-guttman-nyappdiv-1959.