From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padula v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 11, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Misc. 1958)

Opinion

September 11, 1958

Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel, for defendant.

Richard Garavieso for plaintiffs.


Plaintiffs filed a statement of readiness (Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., special readiness rule) the very day that they served a bill of particulars upon the defendant. The statement indicates that the defendant has completed all proceedings except an examination before trial which it had a reasonable opportunity to complete. This manifestly cannot be since the defendant must first examine the bill of particulars served upon it and complete its 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 defendant, 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

Padula v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Sep 11, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Misc. 1958)
Case details for

Padula v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:SAL PADULA, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, PASQUALE PADULA et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Sep 11, 1958

Citations

14 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Misc. 1958)
178 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

Zummo Const. Co. v. Campbell Corp.

The propriety, in this case, of serving the bill of particulars simultaneously with, or shortly before the…

Polsinelli v. Hanover Ins. Co.

It has been held that when, contrary to the statement of readiness, a case is not ready for trial, the note…