Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 306, 644 N.Y.2d 200, 644 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141

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

DecidedJune 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 306 (Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 306, 644 N.Y.2d 200, 644 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to mark the case off the calendar (CPLR 3401) in consideration of plaintiff’s need to subpoena a witness, and of in limine exclusion of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert (cf., Scarburgh Co. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 65 AD2d 694; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 AD2d 601). Any prejudice caused defendants was remedied by the imposition of $2,500 in costs to be paid to each. The subsequent grant of a 30-day extension to pay these costs was proper given the overriding policy of allowing cases to be decided on their merits. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to mark the case off the calendar (CPLR 3401) in consideration of plaintiff’s need to subpoena a witness, and of in limine exclusion of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert (cf., Scarburgh Co. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 65 AD2d 694; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 AD2d 601). Any prejudice caused defendants was remedied by the imposition of $2,500 in costs to be paid to each. The subsequent grant of a 30-day extension to pay these costs was proper given the overriding policy of allowing cases to be decided on their merits. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 306, 644 N.Y.2d 200, 644 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinnocenzo-v-jordache-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack