Peralta v. John Tara, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peralta v. John Tara, Inc.

30 A.D.3d 256, 816 N.Y.S.2d 354

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

DecidedJune 15, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 256 (Peralta v. John Tara, Inc.) 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

Peralta v. John Tara, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 256, 816 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 31, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff bicyclist was struck by defendants’ vehicle, denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) to amend the preliminary conference order so as to grant him priority of examination before trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to priority of examination because he served the first notice of examination on May 25, 2005, after defendants’ time to answer had expired. Defendants’ attorney represents that on May 24, plaintiffs attorney orally agreed to extend defendants’ time to answer to June 1, 2005, and, relying on such agreement, he served defendants’ answer and notice of examination on that date, thus retaining defendants’ normal priority of examination under CPLR 3106 (a). Plaintiffs attorney admits that a conversation took place on May 24, but denies that he agreed to an extension of time to answer. We note that plaintiff’s attorney did not reject the answer served on June 1, 2005, even though defendants were, according to him, in default. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly retained defendants’ normal priority (see Buchwald v Moskowitz, 142 Misc 2d 763 [1989]; cf. Church & Dwight Co. v UDDO & Assoc., 159 AD2d 275 [1990]). We have [257]*257considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 31, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff bicyclist was struck by defendants’ vehicle, denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) to amend the preliminary conference order so as to grant him priority of examination before trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to priority of examination because he served the first notice of examination on May 25, 2005, after defendants’ time to answer had expired. Defendants’ attorney represents that on May 24, plaintiffs attorney orally agreed to extend defendants’ time to answer to June 1, 2005, and, relying on such agreement, he served defendants’ answer and notice of examination on that date, thus retaining defendants’ normal priority of examination under CPLR 3106 (a). Plaintiffs attorney admits that a conversation took place on May 24, but denies that he agreed to an extension of time to answer. We note that plaintiff’s attorney did not reject the answer served on June 1, 2005, even though defendants were, according to him, in default. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly retained defendants’ normal priority (see Buchwald v Moskowitz, 142 Misc 2d 763 [1989]; cf. Church & Dwight Co. v UDDO & Assoc., 159 AD2d 275 [1990]). We have [257]*257considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 256, 816 N.Y.S.2d 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peralta-v-john-tara-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack