Singletary v. Spell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singletary v. Spell

31 A.D.2d 945, 298 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4457

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 945 (Singletary v. Spell) 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

Singletary v. Spell, 31 A.D.2d 945, 298 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 4, 1968, which denied plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, to reinstate their statement of readiness. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding the following to the decretal paragraph thereof: “except that the motion is granted to the extent of reinstating plaintiffs’ statement of readiness.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. It is uncontradicted that plaintiffs filed the statement of readiness prematurely, but thereafter, and prior to the return date of the previous motion by defendant to strike the statement of readiness, plaintiffs completed the pretrial prerequisites by serving defendant with the appropriate documents. Consequently, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to reinstate the statement of readiness. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 4, 1968, which denied plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, to reinstate their statement of readiness. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding the following to the decretal paragraph thereof: “except that the motion is granted to the extent of reinstating plaintiffs’ statement of readiness.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. It is uncontradicted that plaintiffs filed the statement of readiness prematurely, but thereafter, and prior to the return date of the previous motion by defendant to strike the statement of readiness, plaintiffs completed the pretrial prerequisites by serving defendant with the appropriate documents. Consequently, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to reinstate the statement of readiness. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 945, 298 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singletary-v-spell-nyappdiv-1969.