Walker v. Saftler, Saftler & Kirschner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Saftler, Saftler & Kirschner

236 A.D.2d 224, 653 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 912

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 224 (Walker v. Saftler, Saftler & Kirschner) 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

Walker v. Saftler, Saftler & Kirschner, 236 A.D.2d 224, 653 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about [225]*225August 21, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although disclosure had not been completed when the note of issue was filed, the IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue since both parties, particularly defendants, had been inordinately dilatory, resulting in little disclosure having taken place over the five years that the action has been pending (Work-O-Lite Co. v Lighting Unlimited, 198 AD2d 144, 145; Hutchins v Wand, 82 AD2d 928). In addition, plaintiff, who is 82 years of age and suffering from a chronic heart condition, had previously been granted a trial preference by a different Justice aware of the status of the case. Under the circumstances, any further delay would severely prejudice him. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about [225]*225August 21, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although disclosure had not been completed when the note of issue was filed, the IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue since both parties, particularly defendants, had been inordinately dilatory, resulting in little disclosure having taken place over the five years that the action has been pending (Work-O-Lite Co. v Lighting Unlimited, 198 AD2d 144, 145; Hutchins v Wand, 82 AD2d 928). In addition, plaintiff, who is 82 years of age and suffering from a chronic heart condition, had previously been granted a trial preference by a different Justice aware of the status of the case. Under the circumstances, any further delay would severely prejudice him. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 224, 653 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-saftler-saftler-kirschner-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack