In re the Estate of Pipski
This text of 152 Misc. 387 (In re the Estate of Pipski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an application to strike out the respondent’s answer on the ground that he failed to appear for examination before trial after the service upon his attorney of a notice therefor. No order for such examination was obtained and no subpoena was served.
The requested relief may be granted only if authorized by some statute. (Levine v. Moskowitz, 206 App. Div. 194.) A party’s pleading may now be stricken out if he fails to appear for examination pursuant to an order therefor after service thereof upon his attorney (Civ. Prac. Act, § 299), but the Legislature has not sanctioned the infliction of this penalty for failure to appear for examination in response to a mere notice.
Motion denied. Settle order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
152 Misc. 387, 273 N.Y.S. 256, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-pipski-nysurct-1934.