La Manna Concrete, Inc. v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

La Manna Concrete, Inc. v. Friedman

34 A.D.2d 576, 309 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 576 (La Manna Concrete, Inc. v. Friedman) 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

La Manna Concrete, Inc. v. Friedman, 34 A.D.2d 576, 309 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a contract ¡ and an account stated, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 2, 1969, in favor of plaintiff against them pursuant to an order of said court entered June 13, 1969 which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ answer on the ground of their willful failure to appear for examination before trial. Judgment and said order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent against appellants; plaintiff’s said motion granted to the extent of directing defendants to comply with the prior order of said court dated April 2, 1969, which directed the examination to continue before a Referee who was designated therein; and defendants’ answer reinstated. The examination shall proceed at the place set forth in the order of April 2, 1969 at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff. This determination is conditioned upon counsel for defendants paying $250 to plaintiff’s counsel for their fees, in addition to the costs and disbursements of this appeal, within 10 days after taxation of said costs and disbursements of the appeal. We are of the opinion that the conduct of defendants and their counsel was not so willful and com tumacious as to warrant the striking out of defendants’ answer under CPLR 3126. However, the conduct of counsel for defendants shows such a lack of appreciation for proper procedure and careful handling of this matter that it warrants the imposition upon them of the additional expenses that have been incurred by counsel for plaintiff. We note that the deposition of an adverse party may not be taken before a person in the employ of an attorney for the party who seeks the deposition (CPLR 3113). We are further constrained to call attention to the proper practice before this court in giving citations to legal authorities. The citation must be to the official reports unless the case is not listed therein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover upon a contract ¡ and an account stated, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 2, 1969, in favor of plaintiff against them pursuant to an order of said court entered June 13, 1969 which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ answer on the ground of their willful failure to appear for examination before trial. Judgment and said order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent against appellants; plaintiff’s said motion granted to the extent of directing defendants to comply with the prior order of said court dated April 2, 1969, which directed the examination to continue before a Referee who was designated therein; and defendants’ answer reinstated. The examination shall proceed at the place set forth in the order of April 2, 1969 at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff. This determination is conditioned upon counsel for defendants paying $250 to plaintiff’s counsel for their fees, in addition to the costs and disbursements of this appeal, within 10 days after taxation of said costs and disbursements of the appeal. We are of the opinion that the conduct of defendants and their counsel was not so willful and com tumacious as to warrant the striking out of defendants’ answer under CPLR 3126. However, the conduct of counsel for defendants shows such a lack of appreciation for proper procedure and careful handling of this matter that it warrants the imposition upon them of the additional expenses that have been incurred by counsel for plaintiff. We note that the deposition of an adverse party may not be taken before a person in the employ of an attorney for the party who seeks the deposition (CPLR 3113). We are further constrained to call attention to the proper practice before this court in giving citations to legal authorities. The citation must be to the official reports unless the case is not listed therein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 576, 309 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-manna-concrete-inc-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack