Padula v. City of New York

14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2714
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 11, 1958·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiffs filed a statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule) the very day that they served a bill of particulars upon the defendant. The statement indicates that the defendant has completed all proceedings except an examination before trial which it had a reasonable opportunity to complete. This manifestly cannot be since the defendant must first examine the bill of particulars served upon it and complete its investigation relative to the facts cited in the bill before determining whether an examination before trial of the plaintiffs is to be had at all. Adequate time to accomplish this should be therefore afforded defendant, which obviously was not possible in the circumstances here. The statement of readiness being insufficient and premature, the action is consequently stricken from the calendar. See Ehlin v. Piccola (14 Misc 2d 251).

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

Padula v. City of New York, 14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2714 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

14 Misc. 2d 259 (Padula v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Polsinelli v. Hanover Insurance
62 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Zummo Construction Co. v. Campbell Realty Corp.
27 Misc. 2d 607 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)