Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Liberty Dressing v. Foster Sportswear

    14 A.D.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    The effect of plaintiff's failure so to move was to waive its right to take the defendant's deposition and since plaintiff has made no factual showing of any special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, and the Special Term found none, the motion to vacate should have been granted. ( Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204 [1st Dept.]; Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., 3 A.D.2d 927 [2d Dept.]; Hoover v. Ruth, 8 Misc.2d 496 [3d Dept.]; Cerrone v. S'Doia, 11 A.D.2d 350 [4th Dept.].) Special Rule Respecting Calendar Practice (Appellate Division, 3d Dept.) providing, in pertinent part, as follows:

  2. Handschu v. Weltz

    13 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances presented in this record, Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff the amendment as to the additional purchaser. At this late date such a substantial amendment would not be in the interests of justice, since a statement of readiness had been filed, since the action is on the calendar awaiting trial, and since no valid reason has been presented to explain or excuse plaintiff's delay of approximately 17 months in seeking the requested relief with respect to the additional purchaser ( Shanack v. Long Is. Daily Press Pub. Co., 10 A.D.2d 965; Friezner v. Circle Line Sightseeing Yachts, 7 A.D.2d 749; Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., 3 A.D.2d 927; Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204). Beldock, Acting P.J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

  3. Atlas v. Pollard

    12 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

    The Special Rule requiring the filing of a Statement of Readiness is applicable to matrimonial actions. We find in this record no basis for the exercise of discretion in favor of denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the defendants' notice ( Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., 3 A.D.2d 927; Amkraut v. Roanoke Garment Co., 5 A.D.2d 863). The examination before trial of the female defendant pursuant to the court's prior order, dated July 11, 1960, shall proceed on 10 days' written notice or at such time as may be mutually fixed by the parties. Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

  4. Rosado v. Valvo

    58 Misc. 2d 944 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    There must be a reasonable basis for the exercise of the court's discretion ( Farrell v. Reed, 16 A.D.2d 709). Of course, where there has been delay, a satisfactory reason or explanation must be furnished ( Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., 3 A.D.2d 927). In this case the infant plaintiff states that at the time the statement of readiness was filed he was not aware of any action against the defendants by the coplaintiffs, and that the first knowledge of the same was acquired when the defendants moved to consolidate both actions.

  5. Grofsick v. Babbitt

    19 Misc. 2d 484 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959)

    particulars, nor makes a motion to vacate or modify a demand for a bill of particulars within five days following receipt of such demand, a defendant is generally entitled to the particulars as demanded; and the failure to furnish the particulars demanded may subject the plaintiff to an order of preclusion (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 115; Steuart v. Jacobs, 107 N.Y.S.2d 535; Tomasino v. Prudential Westchester Corp., 1 A.D.2d 781). The foregoing rule, however, is to be applied as limited by the view apparently adopted by the Appellate Division, both in the First and Second Departments, namely, that the failure by a party to complete pretrial proceedings prior to the filing of a statement of readiness by the adverse party constitutes, unless a motion be made within 20 days after such filing to strike the case from the calendar, a waiver of the right to further pursue such proceedings where there are absent any special or unusual circumstances, or satisfactory reason excusing the delay (see Norman v. Pyramid Cranes Co., 3 A.D.2d 927; see, also, Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204). Moreover, subdivision 9(c) of the Statement of Readiness Rule affecting this court, as amended, effective September 8, 1958, provides that "After any action has been placed on the Trial Calendar, pursuant to this Statement of Readiness Rule, no pre-trial examination or other preliminary proceeding may be had, * * * except under the following circumstances: If unusual and unanticipated conditions subsequently develop which make it necessary that further pre-trial examinations or further preliminary proceedings be had and if, without them, the moving party will be unduly prejudiced" (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., Special Rule Requiring the Filing of a Statement of Readiness in order to Place or Retain any Action on any Trial Calendar).