Cassidy v. Kolonsky
| Decision Date | 21 October 1971 |
| Citation | 325 N.Y.S.2d 145,37 A.D.2d 880 |
| Parties | William J. CASSIDY et al., Respondents, v. Helen J. KOLONSKY et al., Defendants, and Pine Oak Construction, Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James G. Heffernan, Mechanicville, for respondents.
Medwin & McMahon, Albany (Edward A. McMahon, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Before REYNOLDS, J.P., and AULISI, STALEY, COOKE and SIMONS, JJ.
Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, entered in Saratoga County, granting respondents' motion to compel an examination before trial.
Appellant objects to the examination before trial here involved on the ground that the note of issue had been filed almost two years previous and the case was on the day calendar in September, 1970, at which time it was marked ready by all parties, and we believe correctly so. The Statement of Readiness Rule (22 NYCRR § 861.10) must be strictly enforced, and absent a showing of unusual and extraordinary circumstances, disclosure devices cannot be permitted to be utilized after such statement has been filed (Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, 33 A.D.2d 953, 306 N.Y.S.2d 863; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York City Practice, 3402.12). In the instant case, no such unusual or extraordinary circumstances have been established (cf., D'Angelo v. Goddard, 29 A.D.2d 333, 287 N.Y.S.2d 1007) and it is immaterial that the examination of appellant was incomplete at the time of filing (Barnett v. Ferguson, 29 A.D.2d 525, 285 N.Y.S.2d 979). Moreover, the motion should have been denied due to inexcusable laches (Mallin v. Kossin, 25 A.D.2d 509, 266 N.Y.S.2d 579).
Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...(Mallin v. Kossin, 25 A.D.2d 509, 266 N.Y.S.2d 579; see Belski v. New York Cent. RR., 38 A.D.2d 882, 329 N.Y.S.2d 345; Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880, 325 N.Y.S.2d 145; Fireproof Products Co., Inc., v. Trebuhs Realty Co., Inc., 30 A.D.2d 521, 290 N.Y.S.2d 523). Consequently, in the abse......
-
Maxie v. Gimbel Bros. Inc.
...292 N.Y.S.2d 130, 239 N.E.2d 220; Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A.D.2d 436, 260 N.Y.S.2d 700, see Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880, 325 N.Y.S.2d 145; cf. 68 Fifth Ave. Rest. Inc. v. 59 Rest. Corp., 37 A.D.2d 780, 325 N.Y.S.2d 381 (where party possessed peculiar knowledg......
-
Bean Bros., Inc. v. Eckert
...statement of readiness rule must be strictly enforced (Didziulis v. Callanan Ind., 52 A.D.2d 669, 382 N.Y.S.2d 125; Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880, 325 N.Y.S.2d 145; D'Angelo v. Goddard, 29 A.D.2d 333, 287 N.Y.S.2d 1007). This rule, however, is not inflexible and may be relaxed when spe......
- People v. McIntyre