Steri-Tex Corp. v. Best Manufacturing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steri-Tex Corp. v. Best Manufacturing, Inc.

64 A.D.2d 1016, 409 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13025

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 1016 (Steri-Tex Corp. v. Best Manufacturing, Inc.) 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

Steri-Tex Corp. v. Best Manufacturing, Inc., 64 A.D.2d 1016, 409 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term conditionally granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer unless defendant submitted to an examination before trial within 45 days and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged a conspiracy to monopolize. Defendant’s cross motion was based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of this court dated November 4, 1977 (59 AD2d 1012) directing that plaintiff answer specified interrogatories. Defendant contends that the interrogatories should be answered by plaintiff before plaintiff proceeds with the examination of defendant and that Special Term in effect improperly modified our prior order. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that it needs to examine defendant in order to answer the interrogatories. Insofar as interrogatories elicit details concerning plaintiff’s allegations, they are similar to a bill of particulars (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3130.03). We have held that "Where much of the information which a party needs to prepare his bill of particulars is within the knowledge of the other party, it is futile to require service of the bill before completion of the examination before trial” (Matter of Reynolds, 38 AD2d 788, 789). Moreover, priority of discovery devices, as with other matters relating to pretrial proceedings, is left largely to the discretion of the trial court (Rochester Radio Supply -Co. v State of New York, 43 AD2d 897, 898) and we find no abuse of that discretion here. Finally, Special Term did not modify our order inasmuch as it expressly provided that plaintiff is under a continuing duty to supplement its answers to the interrogatories. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—strike answer.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term conditionally granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer unless defendant submitted to an examination before trial within 45 days and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged a conspiracy to monopolize. Defendant’s cross motion was based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of this court dated November 4, 1977 (59 AD2d 1012) directing that plaintiff answer specified interrogatories. Defendant contends that the interrogatories should be answered by plaintiff before plaintiff proceeds with the examination of defendant and that Special Term in effect improperly modified our prior order. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that it needs to examine defendant in order to answer the interrogatories. Insofar as interrogatories elicit details concerning plaintiff’s allegations, they are similar to a bill of particulars (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3130.03). We have held that "Where much of the information which a party needs to prepare his bill of particulars is within the knowledge of the other party, it is futile to require service of the bill before completion of the examination before trial” (Matter of Reynolds, 38 AD2d 788, 789). Moreover, priority of discovery devices, as with other matters relating to pretrial proceedings, is left largely to the discretion of the trial court (Rochester Radio Supply -Co. v State of New York, 43 AD2d 897, 898) and we find no abuse of that discretion here. Finally, Special Term did not modify our order inasmuch as it expressly provided that plaintiff is under a continuing duty to supplement its answers to the interrogatories. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—strike answer.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 1016, 409 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steri-tex-corp-v-best-manufacturing-inc-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack