Kerner v. Schulman

New York Supreme Court

Kerner v. Schulman

14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2704

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 259 (Kerner v. Schulman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerner v. Schulman, 14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiffs filed a statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule) less [260]*260than two months after serving a bill of particulars upon the attorneys for the defendants. The statement further indicates that the defendants have completed all proceedings except an examination before trial which they had a reasonable opportunity to complete. This manifestly cannot be since the defendants must first examine the bill of particulars served upon them and complete their investigation relative to the facts cited in the bill before determining whether an examination before trial of the plaintiffs is to ¡be had at all. Adequate time to accomplish this should be, therefore, afforded defendants, which obviously was not possible in the circumstances here. The statement of readiness being insufficient and premature, the action is consequently stricken from the calendar. See Ehlin v. Piccola (14 Misc 2d 251).

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

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiffs filed a statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule) less [260]*260than two months after serving a bill of particulars upon the attorneys for the defendants. The statement further indicates that the defendants have completed all proceedings except an examination before trial which they had a reasonable opportunity to complete. This manifestly cannot be since the defendants must first examine the bill of particulars served upon them and complete their investigation relative to the facts cited in the bill before determining whether an examination before trial of the plaintiffs is to ¡be had at all. Adequate time to accomplish this should be, therefore, afforded defendants, which obviously was not possible in the circumstances here. The statement of readiness being insufficient and premature, the action is consequently stricken from the calendar. See Ehlin v. Piccola (14 Misc 2d 251).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerner-v-schulman-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack