Schweigard v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schweigard v. Consolidated Edison Co.

23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4642

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 649 (Schweigard v. Consolidated Edison 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

Schweigard v. Consolidated Edison Co., 23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 16, 1964, granting plaintiffs’ motion to take and perpetuate the testimony of a witness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion denied. This action was commenced in June, 1962. In October, 1963 a note of issue and a statement of readiness were filed and a general preference granted. On November 16, 1964 plaintiffs moved for leave to take the testimony of an expert witness. The affidavit [650]*650in support of the motion offers no explanation for plaintiffs’ failure to take the deposition of the witness before filing a statement of readiness. (Wozndcki V. Lynn Terrace Apts., 22 A D 2d 883; McGee v. Adams Paper é Tviine Go., 22 A D 2d 642; Plantier v. Gould, 12 A D 2d 90; Price V. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204.) Moreover, no special circumstances are indicated warranting the taking of the deposition of the expert before trial. ('CP'LR 3101, sufod. [a], par. [4].) Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., 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 December 16, 1964, granting plaintiffs’ motion to take and perpetuate the testimony of a witness, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion denied. This action was commenced in June, 1962. In October, 1963 a note of issue and a statement of readiness were filed and a general preference granted. On November 16, 1964 plaintiffs moved for leave to take the testimony of an expert witness. The affidavit [650]*650in support of the motion offers no explanation for plaintiffs’ failure to take the deposition of the witness before filing a statement of readiness. (Wozndcki V. Lynn Terrace Apts., 22 A D 2d 883; McGee v. Adams Paper é Tviine Go., 22 A D 2d 642; Plantier v. Gould, 12 A D 2d 90; Price V. Brody, 7 A D 2d 204.) Moreover, no special circumstances are indicated warranting the taking of the deposition of the expert before trial. ('CP'LR 3101, sufod. [a], par. [4].) Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schweigard-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack