From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meidel v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 21, 1986
117 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

February 21, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: When Special Term struck this case from the Trial Calendar pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.8 and permitted discovery to continue, it effectively placed the parties in a pre-note-of-issue status. By striking the case from the calendar, the note of issue and nonjury demand also fell. Therefore, the court erred when it conditioned restoration "as a non-jury cause". The order of restoration pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1024.13 (c) requires a new note of issue and statement of readiness to be filed. The function of the note of issue and certificate of readiness is to give assurance that only those cases ready for trial are on the Trial Calendar; hence all pretrial procedures must be completed or waived (Mazzara v. Town of Pittsford, 30 A.D.2d 634). A jury demand may be served on the filing of a new note of issue (Fleischer v. Institute for Research, 52 A.D.2d 828).


Summaries of

Meidel v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 21, 1986
117 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Meidel v. Ford Motor Company

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT H. MEIDEL et al., Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 1986

Citations

117 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Bradley v. Konakanchi

In so holding, we cited with approval to the Second Department's decision in Berde, a case that exemplifies…