Williams v. H. R. Weissberg Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. H. R. Weissberg Corp.

24 A.D.2d 940, 265 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 940 (Williams v. H. R. Weissberg Corp.) 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

Williams v. H. R. Weissberg Corp., 24 A.D.2d 940, 265 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 9, 1965, directing defendant, to appear and submit to oral examination, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, to the extent of requiring the bill of particulars to be served prior to the examination before trial of defendant, and, as so modified, affirmed. Plaintiff noticed his examination before defendant answered purportedly pursuant to CPLR 3106. He was enabled to do this because defendant obtained an extension of time to answer. Thus, 20 days elapsed since service of the complaint. Plaintiff should not be allowed by this tactic to. overcome defendant’s prior right to examine or to have a bill of particulars'. In this connection the 20-day provision is the equivalent of the time .to answer. (Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Inds., N. Y. L. J.,. April 17, 1964, p. l4, col. 4.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally). Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered August 9, 1965, directing defendant, to appear and submit to oral examination, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, to the extent of requiring the bill of particulars to be served prior to the examination before trial of defendant, and, as so modified, affirmed. Plaintiff noticed his examination before defendant answered purportedly pursuant to CPLR 3106. He was enabled to do this because defendant obtained an extension of time to answer. Thus, 20 days elapsed since service of the complaint. Plaintiff should not be allowed by this tactic to. overcome defendant’s prior right to examine or to have a bill of particulars'. In this connection the 20-day provision is the equivalent of the time .to answer. (Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Inds., N. Y. L. J.,. April 17, 1964, p. l4, col. 4.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally). Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 940, 265 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-h-r-weissberg-corp-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack