Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp.

24 A.D.2d 436, 260 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871

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

DecidedJune 22, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 436 (Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp.) 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

Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A.D.2d 436, 260 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 20, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant unconditionally and in its entirety the plaintiff’s motion for protective order, and order appealed from otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. The notice of discovery and inspection was served approximately six weeks after the service and filing of the statement of readiness and note of issue. There was no showing of such “unusual and unanticipated conditions” as to justify relaxation of the provisions of rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]) of the New York County Supreme Court Rules prohibiting disclosure proceedings after the action was placed on the calendar; and the failure to timely move to strike the cause from the calendar constituted a waiver of the discovery and inspection now sought. (Price v. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204; Woznicki v. Lynn Terrace Apts., 22 A D 2d 883, 884.) Under the circumstances, it is immaterial that the plaintiff’s examination before trial was incomplete at the time of service and filing of the statement of readiness and note of issue. Particularly, it should be noted that before such service and filing and during said examination, plaintiff produced certain books and records but specifically refused to produce its income tax returns. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered August 20, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant unconditionally and in its entirety the plaintiff’s motion for protective order, and order appealed from otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. The notice of discovery and inspection was served approximately six weeks after the service and filing of the statement of readiness and note of issue. There was no showing of such “unusual and unanticipated conditions” as to justify relaxation of the provisions of rule IV of part 1 (subd. 4, par. [g]) of the New York County Supreme Court Rules prohibiting disclosure proceedings after the action was placed on the calendar; and the failure to timely move to strike the cause from the calendar constituted a waiver of the discovery and inspection now sought. (Price v. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204; Woznicki v. Lynn Terrace Apts., 22 A D 2d 883, 884.) Under the circumstances, it is immaterial that the plaintiff’s examination before trial was incomplete at the time of service and filing of the statement of readiness and note of issue. Particularly, it should be noted that before such service and filing and during said examination, plaintiff produced certain books and records but specifically refused to produce its income tax returns. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 436, 260 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-jewelry-corp-v-all-continent-corp-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack