Petrosky v. Vissicchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petrosky v. Vissicchio

59 A.D.2d 938, 399 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 938 (Petrosky v. Vissicchio) 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

Petrosky v. Vissicchio, 59 A.D.2d 938, 399 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for work, labor and services, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 26, 1977, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel him to appear for an examination before trial. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. After having filed a statement of readiness without having taken the defendant’s deposition, the plaintiff should not be permitted under rule 675.7 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 675.7) to assert as "unusual and unanticipated conditions” those which arise solely out of the proceedings in court subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness. Under the former rule, a plaintiff filing a statement of readiness without taking the defendant’s deposition waived the right to take the deposition (see Morrison v Sam Snead Schools of Golf of N. Y., 13 AD2d 986). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for work, labor and services, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 26, 1977, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel him to appear for an examination before trial. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. After having filed a statement of readiness without having taken the defendant’s deposition, the plaintiff should not be permitted under rule 675.7 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 675.7) to assert as "unusual and unanticipated conditions” those which arise solely out of the proceedings in court subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness. Under the former rule, a plaintiff filing a statement of readiness without taking the defendant’s deposition waived the right to take the deposition (see Morrison v Sam Snead Schools of Golf of N. Y., 13 AD2d 986). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 938, 399 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrosky-v-vissicchio-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack