Fireproof Products Co. v. Trebuhs Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fireproof Products Co. v. Trebuhs Realty Co.

30 A.D.2d 521, 290 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891

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

DecidedMay 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 521 (Fireproof Products Co. v. Trebuhs Realty Co.) 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

Fireproof Products Co. v. Trebuhs Realty Co., 30 A.D.2d 521, 290 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered March 5, 1968, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct disclosure proceedings, considered as a renewal of an application for such leave, denied. Plaintiff’s failure to seek disclosure proceedings for a period of three and one-half years after joinder of issue and its gross delay in the prosecution of the action precludes its present attempt to conduct such proceedings following the filing by defendant of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to present any reasonable explanation for its inaction and inordinate delay, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to grant plaintiff’s motion on renewal thereof. (See Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483; Morrison v. Snead Schools of Golf, 13 A D 2d 986; Cerrone v. S’Doia, 11 A D 2d 350; La Porte v. Bertolino, 25 Misc [522]*5222d 783; Prior v. Murray, 17 Misc 2d 505.) Concur — Eager, J. F., Steuer, Capozzoli, MeGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order, entered March 5, 1968, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct disclosure proceedings, considered as a renewal of an application for such leave, denied. Plaintiff’s failure to seek disclosure proceedings for a period of three and one-half years after joinder of issue and its gross delay in the prosecution of the action precludes its present attempt to conduct such proceedings following the filing by defendant of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to present any reasonable explanation for its inaction and inordinate delay, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to grant plaintiff’s motion on renewal thereof. (See Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483; Morrison v. Snead Schools of Golf, 13 A D 2d 986; Cerrone v. S’Doia, 11 A D 2d 350; La Porte v. Bertolino, 25 Misc [522]*5222d 783; Prior v. Murray, 17 Misc 2d 505.) Concur — Eager, J. F., Steuer, Capozzoli, MeGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 521, 290 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fireproof-products-co-v-trebuhs-realty-co-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack