Sadif, S. A. v. Burnham & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sadif, S. A. v. Burnham & Co.

20 A.D.2d 777, 247 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4206

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 777 (Sadif, S. A. v. Burnham & Co.) 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

Sadif, S. A. v. Burnham & Co., 20 A.D.2d 777, 247 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 28, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to delete the provisions for the granting of the cross motion, the cross motion to strike cause from the calendar is denied, and the order otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant. Under rule 3402 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, a note of issue may be filed “At any time after issue is first joined”. Under rule 3211 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, a motion challenging the sufficiency of defenses may be made at any time prior to, or even upon the trial. (See 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3211.47; McKinney’s Book 7B, CPLR 3211, Note, p. 326.) Therefore, when an action is otherwise “ready for trial”, it is unrealistic to construe the Statement of Readiness Rule (New York and Bronx Counties Supreme Ct. Rules, rule IV, subd. 4) as requiring the right to file a note of issue to be held in abeyance pending the determination of the appeal by plaintiff from an order denying its motion to strike certain defenses in defendants’ answer. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 28, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to delete the provisions for the granting of the cross motion, the cross motion to strike cause from the calendar is denied, and the order otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant. Under rule 3402 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, a note of issue may be filed “At any time after issue is first joined”. Under rule 3211 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, a motion challenging the sufficiency of defenses may be made at any time prior to, or even upon the trial. (See 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3211.47; McKinney’s Book 7B, CPLR 3211, Note, p. 326.) Therefore, when an action is otherwise “ready for trial”, it is unrealistic to construe the Statement of Readiness Rule (New York and Bronx Counties Supreme Ct. Rules, rule IV, subd. 4) as requiring the right to file a note of issue to be held in abeyance pending the determination of the appeal by plaintiff from an order denying its motion to strike certain defenses in defendants’ answer. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 777, 247 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadif-s-a-v-burnham-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack