Nowak v. Buffalo Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nowak v. Buffalo Electric Co.

286 A.D. 987, 144 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 987 (Nowak v. Buffalo Electric 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

Nowak v. Buffalo Electric Co., 286 A.D. 987, 144 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum : While it is now proper to strike the pleading of a party if he willfully fails to appear for examination pursuant to either an order or notice of examination (Civ. Prae. Act, § 299, as amd. by L. 1955, ch. 497, eff. Sept. 1, 1955), such remedy was not available under section 299 prior to said amendment, for failure to appear in response to a mere notice served, when no order for examination was obtained and no subpcena served; nor did the court have any inherent power to strike out a pleading in such a case. (Levine v. Moskowitz, 206 App. Div. 194; Tebo v. Baker, 77 N. V. 33.) The order appealed from, having been granted prior to the effective date of the amendment of section 299, was unauthorized and should be reversed. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, and from an order granting defendant-appellant’s motion to strike out the complaint and for judgment unless plaintiff submits to examination pursuant to notice.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Memorandum : While it is now proper to strike the pleading of a party if he willfully fails to appear for examination pursuant to either an order or notice of examination (Civ. Prae. Act, § 299, as amd. by L. 1955, ch. 497, eff. Sept. 1, 1955), such remedy was not available under section 299 prior to said amendment, for failure to appear in response to a mere notice served, when no order for examination was obtained and no subpcena served; nor did the court have any inherent power to strike out a pleading in such a case. (Levine v. Moskowitz, 206 App. Div. 194; Tebo v. Baker, 77 N. V. 33.) The order appealed from, having been granted prior to the effective date of the amendment of section 299, was unauthorized and should be reversed. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, and from an order granting defendant-appellant’s motion to strike out the complaint and for judgment unless plaintiff submits to examination pursuant to notice.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 987, 144 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowak-v-buffalo-electric-co-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack