Mallin v. Kossin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mallin v. Kossin

25 A.D.2d 509, 266 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 509 (Mallin v. Kossin) 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

Mallin v. Kossin, 25 A.D.2d 509, 266 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 8, 1965, granting plaintiffs’ motion to conduct an examination before trial of a witness, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. The application to examine the witness was made almost 16 months after plaintiffs had filed a statement of readiness. Apart from any question as to whether plaintiffs had demonstrated special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances to permit a departure from our statement of readiness rule (see Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483), the record demonstrates inexcusable laches in making the application. Plaintiffs knew of the existence of the nonresident witness before they filed their statement of readiness and before they drafted their bill of particulars. Yet, no steps were taken to elicit any testimony from the witness. Having failed to use reasonable diligence in asserting their rights, plaintiffs forfeited any right to appeal on equitable principles for relief from the statement of readiness rule.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered December 8, 1965, granting plaintiffs’ motion to conduct an examination before trial of a witness, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. The application to examine the witness was made almost 16 months after plaintiffs had filed a statement of readiness. Apart from any question as to whether plaintiffs had demonstrated special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances to permit a departure from our statement of readiness rule (see Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A D 2d 483), the record demonstrates inexcusable laches in making the application. Plaintiffs knew of the existence of the nonresident witness before they filed their statement of readiness and before they drafted their bill of particulars. Yet, no steps were taken to elicit any testimony from the witness. Having failed to use reasonable diligence in asserting their rights, plaintiffs forfeited any right to appeal on equitable principles for relief from the statement of readiness rule.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 509, 266 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallin-v-kossin-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack