Miller v. Dworman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Dworman

65 A.D.2d 785, 410 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13643

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 785 (Miller v. Dworman) 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

Miller v. Dworman, 65 A.D.2d 785, 410 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 27, 1978, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike their answer for failure to obey a prior order directing them to appear at an examination before trial. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted only to the extent of precluding defendant Kearse from testifying at the trial unless plaintiff be accorded the right to examine him at least 20 days before trial. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not feel that the conduct of codefendant Dworman constituted a willful or contumacious disregard of the prior order so as to warrant an order of [786]*786preclusion as to him. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 27, 1978, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike their answer for failure to obey a prior order directing them to appear at an examination before trial. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted only to the extent of precluding defendant Kearse from testifying at the trial unless plaintiff be accorded the right to examine him at least 20 days before trial. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not feel that the conduct of codefendant Dworman constituted a willful or contumacious disregard of the prior order so as to warrant an order of [786]*786preclusion as to him. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 785, 410 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-dworman-nyappdiv-1978.