Jonas v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jonas v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc.

142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 554 (Jonas v. Liberty Lines Transit, 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

Jonas v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., 142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated March 26, 1987, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate a notice to admit served by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs use of the notice to admit (CPLR 3123) as a substitute for existing discovery devices was palpably improper and the Supreme Court therefore neither erred nor improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to vacate (see, Taylor v Blair, 116 AD2d 204; Batchie v Travelers Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 864; Berg v Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 AD2d 760). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated March 26, 1987, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate a notice to admit served by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs use of the notice to admit (CPLR 3123) as a substitute for existing discovery devices was palpably improper and the Supreme Court therefore neither erred nor improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to vacate (see, Taylor v Blair, 116 AD2d 204; Batchie v Travelers Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 864; Berg v Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 AD2d 760). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonas-v-liberty-lines-transit-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack