Joseph v. Propst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Propst

306 A.D.2d 246, 760 N.Y.S.2d 359

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

DecidedJune 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 246 (Joseph v. Propst) 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

Joseph v. Propst, 306 A.D.2d 246, 760 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 29, 2002, as denied their motion to vacate the plaintiffs note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness upon its ordering additional pretrial discovery (see RonelBennett, Inc. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 149 AD2d 678 [1989]; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794 [1986]; Easley v Van Dyke, 110 AD2d 967 [1985]; Watts v Town of Gardiner, 90 AD2d 615 [1982]; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d], [e]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 29, 2002, as denied their motion to vacate the plaintiffs note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness upon its ordering additional pretrial discovery (see RonelBennett, Inc. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 149 AD2d 678 [1989]; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794 [1986]; Easley v Van Dyke, 110 AD2d 967 [1985]; Watts v Town of Gardiner, 90 AD2d 615 [1982]; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d], [e]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 246, 760 N.Y.S.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-propst-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack