Morris v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.

114 A.D.2d 779, 495 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53794

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 779 (Morris v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc.) 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

Morris v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc., 114 A.D.2d 779, 495 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irwin M. Silbowitz, J.), entered April 1, 1985, denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion granted.

It was sharp practice for plaintiff’s counsel, on or about January 29, 1985, to file a note of issue and statement of readiness indicating "there are no outstanding requests for discovery,” when defendant’s attorney, by letter of January 10, 1985 and by follow-up letter of January 24, 1985, had inquired of him as to whether plaintiff’s aunt, a witness, who was claiming lack of service, would appear for deposition, if re-served. Apparently, defendant’s counsel had made the same inquiry by telephone the day before and plaintiff’s attorney, had promised to "get back to [him].” Accordingly, we reverse and strike the note of issue and statement of readiness. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irwin M. Silbowitz, J.), entered April 1, 1985, denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion granted.

It was sharp practice for plaintiff’s counsel, on or about January 29, 1985, to file a note of issue and statement of readiness indicating "there are no outstanding requests for discovery,” when defendant’s attorney, by letter of January 10, 1985 and by follow-up letter of January 24, 1985, had inquired of him as to whether plaintiff’s aunt, a witness, who was claiming lack of service, would appear for deposition, if re-served. Apparently, defendant’s counsel had made the same inquiry by telephone the day before and plaintiff’s attorney, had promised to "get back to [him].” Accordingly, we reverse and strike the note of issue and statement of readiness. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 779, 495 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-schmid-laboratories-inc-nyappdiv-1985.