From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kerner v. Schulman

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 12, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

September 12, 1958

Flood De Caro for defendants.

Charles Berkman for plaintiffs.


Plaintiffs filed a statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule) less than two months after serving a bill of particulars upon the attorneys for the defendants. The statement further indicates that the defendants have completed all proceedings except an examination before trial which they had a reasonable opportunity to complete. This manifestly cannot be since the defendants must first examine the bill of particulars served upon them and complete their investigation relative to the facts cited in the bill before determining whether an examination before trial of the plaintiffs is to be had at all. Adequate time to accomplish this should be, therefore, afforded defendants, which obviously was not possible in the circumstances here. The statement of readiness being insufficient and premature, the action is consequently stricken from the calendar. See Ehlin v. Piccola ( 14 Misc.2d 251).


Summaries of

Kerner v. Schulman

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 12, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Kerner v. Schulman

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY L. KERNER et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARTIN SCHULMAN et al., Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Sep 12, 1958

Citations

14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
178 N.Y.S.2d 669

Citing Cases

Zummo Const. Co. v. Campbell Corp.

An intervening period of two months between the service of a bill of particulars and the filing of a…

La Porte v. Bertolino

I construe paragraph (a) of subdivision (3) as follows: Where a reasonable time has elapsed after the service…