Padula v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Padula v. City of New York

14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2714

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 11, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 259 (Padula v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 2d 259, 178 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padula-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack