Santangelo v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santangelo v. County of Nassau

78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13217

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 694 (Santangelo v. County of Nassau) 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

Santangelo v. County of Nassau, 78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest and defamation, defendants appeal 'from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, [695]*695Nassau County, entered April 7, 1980, which, in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial of defendants, upon condition that she consent to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness and strike the action from the Trial Calendar, and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 23, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to allow plaintiff to remove the case from the calendar so that the purposes of reciprocal discovery could be effectuated. This matter has moved along expeditiously, and defendants are unable to point to any specific prejudice arising out of the orders appealed from. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest and defamation, defendants appeal 'from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, [695]*695Nassau County, entered April 7, 1980, which, in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial of defendants, upon condition that she consent to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness and strike the action from the Trial Calendar, and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 23, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to allow plaintiff to remove the case from the calendar so that the purposes of reciprocal discovery could be effectuated. This matter has moved along expeditiously, and defendants are unable to point to any specific prejudice arising out of the orders appealed from. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santangelo-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1980.