Romito v. Bourjois, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romito v. Bourjois, Inc.

16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976

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

DecidedJune 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 982 (Romito v. Bourjois, 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

Romito v. Bourjois, Inc., 16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services resulting from the use of a body deodorant manufactured and sold by defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 19, 1961, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to examine defendant before trial. Order modified: (a) by striking out all the decretal paragraphs except the fifth, which provides that plaintiffs’ motion for a discovery and inspection is denied; and (b) by substituting a paragraph denying plaintiffs’ motion for examination before trial and for production of books, records, etc., under section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. Plaintiffs filed their note of issue and their statement of readiness on November 23, 1959. They made no effort to obtain an examination of defendant before trial until they made a motion therefor about a year and a half thereafter (a motion previous to the one upon which the order presently reviewed was made). In our opinion, the record does not justify the conclusion that the necessity, if any, for an examination before trial, resulted from unusual and unanticipated conditions which developed subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness (see former Special Rules, Appellate Division — Second Department, Special Readiness Rule, subd. 9, par. e). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services resulting from the use of a body deodorant manufactured and sold by defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 19, 1961, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to examine defendant before trial. Order modified: (a) by striking out all the decretal paragraphs except the fifth, which provides that plaintiffs’ motion for a discovery and inspection is denied; and (b) by substituting a paragraph denying plaintiffs’ motion for examination before trial and for production of books, records, etc., under section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. Plaintiffs filed their note of issue and their statement of readiness on November 23, 1959. They made no effort to obtain an examination of defendant before trial until they made a motion therefor about a year and a half thereafter (a motion previous to the one upon which the order presently reviewed was made). In our opinion, the record does not justify the conclusion that the necessity, if any, for an examination before trial, resulted from unusual and unanticipated conditions which developed subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness (see former Special Rules, Appellate Division — Second Department, Special Readiness Rule, subd. 9, par. e). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 982, 230 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romito-v-bourjois-inc-nyappdiv-1962.