Ocera v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ocera v. Solomon

110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48525

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

DecidedApril 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 628 (Ocera v. Solomon) 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

Ocera v. Solomon, 110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Special Term improvidently granted plaintiffs’ motion for an accelerated trial date based on the advanced age of the defendant. CPLR 3403 (a) (3) requires that the movant demonstrate [629]*629by a showing of unequivocable proof that the anticipated lag in reaching trial is likely to cause unusual hardship. The plaintiffs’ speculative assertion that the defendant will not survive the trial date if the case is heard in the usual order is not supported by medical opinion or testimony. Moreover, the defendant was fully deposed at an examination before trial. The circumstances are not sufficiently unusual and extreme as to justify the granting of this extraordinary privilege (Morris Elecs, v Stereo E. Devs., 71 AD2d 1061; Rothschild v Carolina Coach Co., 23 AD2d 729; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3403.10). Titone, P. J., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Special Term improvidently granted plaintiffs’ motion for an accelerated trial date based on the advanced age of the defendant. CPLR 3403 (a) (3) requires that the movant demonstrate [629]*629by a showing of unequivocable proof that the anticipated lag in reaching trial is likely to cause unusual hardship. The plaintiffs’ speculative assertion that the defendant will not survive the trial date if the case is heard in the usual order is not supported by medical opinion or testimony. Moreover, the defendant was fully deposed at an examination before trial. The circumstances are not sufficiently unusual and extreme as to justify the granting of this extraordinary privilege (Morris Elecs, v Stereo E. Devs., 71 AD2d 1061; Rothschild v Carolina Coach Co., 23 AD2d 729; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3403.10). Titone, P. J., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 628, 487 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocera-v-solomon-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack