From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tockman v. Weiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1971
36 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

March 29, 1971


In an action in replevin, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 1, 1970, which (1) denied defendants' motion to vacate plaintiff's statement of readiness and to reopen the examination before trial of plaintiff and (2) denied defendants' motion for leave to serve an amended answer, but without prejudice to a further application for such relief supported by a copy of the proposed amended answer. Order modified by striking therefrom the provisions which denied the motion to reopen the examination before trial of plaintiff and by substituting a decretal provision granting such relief with respect to the new issues raised by the amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The reopened examination of plaintiff shall proceed at 10:00 A.M. at Special Term, Part II, Supreme Court, Nassau County, upon a day specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by defendants, or at such other time and place as the parties mutually agree. The trial should proceed within one week after the conclusion of the examination. In our opinion, the denial of the motion to reopen the examination before trial with respect to the new issues raised by the amended complaint was an improvident exercise of discretion. Rabin, P.J.. Munder, Martuscello, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tockman v. Weiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1971
36 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Tockman v. Weiner

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS TOCKMAN, Respondent, v. FAY WEINER et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 29, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Stambovsky v. Reiner

Respondent's papers in support of the motion fail to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances…