Zoellner v. Neumann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zoellner v. Neumann

1 A.D.2d 941, 150 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746

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

DecidedApril 17, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 941 (Zoellner v. Neumann) 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

Zoellner v. Neumann, 1 A.D.2d 941, 150 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Since it does not appear that defendants will be seriously prejudiced if the relief sought is granted, we feel that in the interests of justice the motion for the issuance of a commission should be granted. We appreciate that defendants are justified in complaining of plaintiff’s delay. [942]*942It would seem, however, that neither side has made any effort to dispose oi this lawsuit expeditiously. Defendants could have accelerated matters by a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently, but instead they were content to let the action remain dormant. In these circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that the testimony sought seems vital to plaintiff’s case, we think the court’s discretion should be exercised so as to permit the deposition even at this late date. Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted, without costs. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

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

Since it does not appear that defendants will be seriously prejudiced if the relief sought is granted, we feel that in the interests of justice the motion for the issuance of a commission should be granted. We appreciate that defendants are justified in complaining of plaintiff’s delay. [942]*942It would seem, however, that neither side has made any effort to dispose oi this lawsuit expeditiously. Defendants could have accelerated matters by a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently, but instead they were content to let the action remain dormant. In these circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that the testimony sought seems vital to plaintiff’s case, we think the court’s discretion should be exercised so as to permit the deposition even at this late date. Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted, without costs. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 941, 150 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zoellner-v-neumann-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack