Fireproof Products Co. v. Trebuhs Realty Co.

Decision Date23 May 1968
Citation30 A.D.2d 521,290 N.Y.S.2d 523
PartiesThe FIREPROOF PRODUCTS CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TREBUHS REALTY CO., Inc., 200 Central Park South, Inc., Aetna Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

M. Ornstein, Brooklyn, for plaintiff-respondent.

R. D. Levin, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before EAGER, J.P., and STEUER, CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN and RABIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order, entered March 5, 1968, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct disclosure proceedings, considered as a renewal of an application for such leave, denied. Plaintiff's failure to seek disclosure proceedings for a period of three and one-half years after joinder of issue and its gross delay in the prosecution of the action precludes its present attempt to conduct such proceedings following the filing by defendant of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to present any reasonable explanation for its inaction and inordinate delay, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to grant plaintiff's motion on renewal thereof. (See Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A.D.2d 483, 255 N.Y.S.2d 492; Morrison v. Sam Snead Schools of Golf of N.Y., 13 A.D.2d 986, 216 N.Y.S.2d 397; Cerrone v. S'Doia, 11 A.D.2d 350, 206 N.Y.S.2d 95; La Porte v. Bertolino, 25 Misc.2d 783, 205 N.Y.S.2d 623; Prior v. Murray, 17 Misc.2d 505, 187 N.Y.S.2d 579.)

Order filed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mosca v. Pensky
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1973
    ...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 absence of special circumstances and after expiration of the time to move to va......
  • Rizzo v. Rizzo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 18, 1969

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT