From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1964
21 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

May 26, 1964


Order, entered on March 10, 1964, denying defendant-appellant's motion for a protective order in a products liability case, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents. The notice to take defendants' oral testimony before trial on February 5, 1964, was served on January 23, 1964. Defendant-appellant had ample time to move for a protective order which would have automatically stayed the examination. (CPLR 3103, subd. [b].) However, it sought and obtained an adjournment of the examination pursuant to the notice without reservation of any right to object. "By custom and practice, adjournments of examinations before trial, like extensions of time to serve answers, contain or should contain reservation of rights to question the regularity or validity of a notice of examination". ( Mossew v. To Market, 3 A.D.2d 189, 190.) Where no reservation has been made in a stipulation for an adjournment of an examination before trial, a motion to modify the notice of examination must be denied. ( Mossew v. To Market, supra.) Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.


Summaries of

Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1964
21 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Brand v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Case Details

Full title:JILL BRAND, an Infant, by CHARLES J. BRAND, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 26, 1964

Citations

21 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Micic v. Ogden

Instead, they sought and obtained adjournments of the examination, without reservation of their right to…

Lubicz v. Rosen

Defendants failed to reserve their rights to object to the notice of examination. Two adjournments were…