Meidel v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meidel v. Ford Motor Co.

117 A.D.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53230

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 991 (Meidel v. Ford Motor Co.) 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

Meidel v. Ford Motor Co., 117 A.D.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: When Special Term struck this case from the Trial Calendar pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.8 and permitted discovery to continue, it effectively placed the parties in a pre-note-of-issue status. By striking the case from the calendar, the note of issue and nonjury demand also fell. Therefore, the court erred when it conditioned restoration "as a non-jury cause”. The order of [992]*992restoration pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.13 (c) requires a new note of issue and statement of readiness to be filed. The function of the note of issue and certificate of readiness is to give assurance that only those cases ready for trial are on the Trial Calendar; hence all pretrial procedures must be completed or waived (Mazzara v Town of Pittsford, 30 AD2d 634). A jury demand may be served on the filing of a new note of issue (Fleischer v Institute for Research, 52 AD2d 828). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—strike note of issue.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: When Special Term struck this case from the Trial Calendar pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.8 and permitted discovery to continue, it effectively placed the parties in a pre-note-of-issue status. By striking the case from the calendar, the note of issue and nonjury demand also fell. Therefore, the court erred when it conditioned restoration "as a non-jury cause”. The order of [992]*992restoration pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.13 (c) requires a new note of issue and statement of readiness to be filed. The function of the note of issue and certificate of readiness is to give assurance that only those cases ready for trial are on the Trial Calendar; hence all pretrial procedures must be completed or waived (Mazzara v Town of Pittsford, 30 AD2d 634). A jury demand may be served on the filing of a new note of issue (Fleischer v Institute for Research, 52 AD2d 828). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—strike note of issue.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meidel-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack