From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cassidy v. Kolonsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 21, 1971
37 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

October 21, 1971


Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, entered in Saratoga County, granting respondents' motion to compel an examination before trial. Appellant objects to the examination before trial here involved on the ground that the note of issue had been filed almost two years previous and the case was on the Day Calendar in September, 1970, at which time it was marked ready by all parties, and we believe correctly so. The statement of readiness rule (22 NYCRR 861.10) must be strictly enforced, and absent a showing of unusual and extraordinary circumstances, disclosure devices cannot be permitted to be utilized after such statement has been filed ( Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, 33 A.D.2d 953; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3402.12). In the instant case, no such unusual or extraordinary circumstances have been established (cf., D'Angelo v. Goddard, 29 A.D.2d 333) and it is immaterial that the examination of appellant was incomplete at the time of filing ( Barnett v. Ferguson, 29 A.D.2d 525). Moreover, the motion should have been denied due to inexcusable laches ( Mallin v. Kossin, 25 A.D.2d 509). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied, with costs. Reynolds, J.P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Simons, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cassidy v. Kolonsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 21, 1971
37 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Cassidy v. Kolonsky

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM J. CASSIDY et al., Respondents, v. HELEN J. KOLONSKY et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 1971

Citations

37 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Remark Elec. Corp. v. Manshul Const. Corp.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the…

Pindar v. Parke Davis Co.

Dr. Dougall objects to a further examination before trial and further discovery on the ground that it would…