From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LUSH v. DANIELS

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 11, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 71 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

September 11, 1958

Benjamin M. Friedland for plaintiff.

Herman Haken for defendant.


Rule 9 preference is denied without prejudice to renew. The statement of readiness filed June 22, 1958 is insufficient and the action is stricken from the calendar. The requirement of subdivision 3 of the statement, indicating discussion of settlement, is not satisfied by the comment "Settlement of this case has not taken place because this accident happened over 3 years ago and neither the attorney for the defendant Daniels nor anyone on his behalf ever called or indicated a desire to discuss settlement herein." The plaintiffs under the readiness rule must show that settlement discussions initiated by either party have terminated unsuccessfully or that the plaintiffs have made a reasonable effort to have such discussions but were unable to initiate them because of a positive refusal to do so on the part of the defendant.


Summaries of

LUSH v. DANIELS

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 11, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 71 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

LUSH v. DANIELS

Case Details

Full title:JENNIE LUSH, Plaintiff, v. ERNEST DANIELS, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Sep 11, 1958

Citations

14 Misc. 2d 71 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
178 N.Y.S.2d 148