Sheehan v. Abbate

New York Supreme Court

Sheehan v. Abbate

14 Misc. 2d 260, 178 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2715

DecidedSeptember 11, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 260 (Sheehan v. Abbate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheehan v. Abbate, 14 Misc. 2d 260, 178 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2715 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Motion for preference, rule 9 of Kings County Supreme Court Trial Term Buies, is denied without prejudice to renew. Defendants’ motion to strike, for insufficiency of the statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule), is granted. The plaintiff in this negligence suit served a bill of particulars upon the defendants on July 8, 1958. The latter have not had ample opportunity to conduct an examination before trial, which they now seek. The cause is therefore not yet fully prepared and the statement of readiness is premature. I had occasion to say in Ehlin v. Piccola (14 Misc 2d 251): “A lapse of two months after receipt of plaintiffs’ bill of particulars before a request is made for their examination before trial is not unreasonable, since some time is needed to investigate facts recited in such bill of particulars.”

Submit order.

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

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Motion for preference, rule 9 of Kings County Supreme Court Trial Term Buies, is denied without prejudice to renew. Defendants’ motion to strike, for insufficiency of the statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule), is granted. The plaintiff in this negligence suit served a bill of particulars upon the defendants on July 8, 1958. The latter have not had ample opportunity to conduct an examination before trial, which they now seek. The cause is therefore not yet fully prepared and the statement of readiness is premature. I had occasion to say in Ehlin v. Piccola (14 Misc 2d 251): “A lapse of two months after receipt of plaintiffs’ bill of particulars before a request is made for their examination before trial is not unreasonable, since some time is needed to investigate facts recited in such bill of particulars.”

Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 2d 260, 178 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-abbate-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack