Paliotto v. Hartman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paliotto v. Hartman

285 A.D. 1086, 141 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6737

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

DecidedApril 25, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1086 (Paliotto v. Hartman) 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

Paliotto v. Hartman, 285 A.D. 1086, 141 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant served notice to examine respondent Sylvia Hartman under sections 288, 290 and 301 of the Civil Practice Act. Prior to the date stated for examination, said respondent moved under section 291 to vacate the notice, the return date of the motion, being after the examination date. She did not appear on the examination date, and appellant moved to punish her for contempt and to strike out her pleading under section 299. Both motions were heard at the same time. Appellant’s motion was denied. Respondent’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, the order providing that the examination be held after appellant has served a bill of particulars previously ordered by the court and that the examination take place in Nassau County where the respondent, a housewife, resides. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Mac Crate, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1174.]

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

Appellant served notice to examine respondent Sylvia Hartman under sections 288, 290 and 301 of the Civil Practice Act. Prior to the date stated for examination, said respondent moved under section 291 to vacate the notice, the return date of the motion, being after the examination date. She did not appear on the examination date, and appellant moved to punish her for contempt and to strike out her pleading under section 299. Both motions were heard at the same time. Appellant’s motion was denied. Respondent’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, the order providing that the examination be held after appellant has served a bill of particulars previously ordered by the court and that the examination take place in Nassau County where the respondent, a housewife, resides. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Mac Crate, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1174.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1086, 141 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paliotto-v-hartman-nyappdiv-1955.