Grigorian v. Paluszek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grigorian v. Paluszek

22 A.D.2d 704, 253 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2970

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 704 (Grigorian v. Paluszek) 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

Grigorian v. Paluszek, 22 A.D.2d 704, 253 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1964, which denied their motion, made pursuant to statute (CPLR 3124, 3126), to direct defendant Paluszek to make disclosure, or alternatively, to strike out his answer for failure to appear for the pretrial examination. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted to the extent of directing the defendant Paluszek to appear for examination at a time and place to be fixed by plaintiffs on 10 days’ written notice or at such time and place as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. The basis for Special Term’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure by defendant Paluszek was the fact that plaintiffs’ prior attorney had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness without having sought or conducted the pretrial examination of this defendant. It appears, however, that on another defendant’s motion the action had been struck from the Trial Calendar for nonreadiness. It follows therefore that the rights of the parties with respect to disclosure procedures have been restored and are now the same as though the abortive, premature note of issue and statement of readiness had never been filed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1964, which denied their motion, made pursuant to statute (CPLR 3124, 3126), to direct defendant Paluszek to make disclosure, or alternatively, to strike out his answer for failure to appear for the pretrial examination. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted to the extent of directing the defendant Paluszek to appear for examination at a time and place to be fixed by plaintiffs on 10 days’ written notice or at such time and place as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. The basis for Special Term’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure by defendant Paluszek was the fact that plaintiffs’ prior attorney had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness without having sought or conducted the pretrial examination of this defendant. It appears, however, that on another defendant’s motion the action had been struck from the Trial Calendar for nonreadiness. It follows therefore that the rights of the parties with respect to disclosure procedures have been restored and are now the same as though the abortive, premature note of issue and statement of readiness had never been filed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 704, 253 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grigorian-v-paluszek-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack