Miceli v. Reily

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miceli v. Reily

54 A.D.2d 754, 387 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14411

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 754 (Miceli v. Reily) 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

Miceli v. Reily, 54 A.D.2d 754, 387 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover possession of real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 12, 1976, which, inter alia, denied the branch of her motion which sought to renew her application to compel defendants’ attorney to appear at an examination before trial as a witness. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We previously held that an attorney’s verification of a pleading does not subject him to examination before trial as a witness (Miceli v Riley, 51 AD2d 972). Plaintiff renews her motion herein for such examination and for other relief, alleging new facts, but these new facts do not warrant the relief sought. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover possession of real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 12, 1976, which, inter alia, denied the branch of her motion which sought to renew her application to compel defendants’ attorney to appear at an examination before trial as a witness. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We previously held that an attorney’s verification of a pleading does not subject him to examination before trial as a witness (Miceli v Riley, 51 AD2d 972). Plaintiff renews her motion herein for such examination and for other relief, alleging new facts, but these new facts do not warrant the relief sought. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 754, 387 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miceli-v-reily-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack