Laurie v. State
| Citation | 49 Misc.2d 413,267 N.Y.S.2d 546 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 40135,40135 |
| Parties | Alfred LAURIE, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant. Claim |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
James G. Blake, Garden City, for claimant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., by Dace Epermanis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The claim herein was filed late by an order of this Court dated November 30, 1962. The alleged false arrest occurred November 20, 1961. Later, a motion returnable May 4, 1965, made by the State to preclude the claimant from offering testimony for failure to serve a bill of particulars was withdrawn on May 4, 1965. On the same day a motion for an examination before trial of the claimant was also withdrawn by the State. An order was made October 1, 1965, upon the non-appearance of the claimant's attorney, precluding the claimant from offering testimony unless, within 30 days thereafter, a bill of particulars was served upon the State. On the same day, October 1, 1965, an order was made ordering an examination before trial of the claimant within 30 days after entry and service of a copy of the order. On December 20, 1965, an order was entered herein upon default of claimant's attorney's appearance dismissing the claim, based on the failure of the claimant to appear for an examination before trial and refusal of the attorney for the claimant to produce the claimant for said examination.
The present motion has been made for an order to vacate the above order of dismissal and the prior orders of preclusion. The Attorney General opposes the said motion.
It appears that since June, 1965 Joseph F. Soviero, Jr., Esq., has been acting as the trial attorney for James G. Blake, Esq., the attorney of record, and that thereafter all the papers above mentioned were served upon Mr. Soviero, rather than upon Mr. Blake, except the final order of dismissal dated December 20, 1965. Mr. Soviero explains that, even though he received all the notices served, he had assumed that that was a courtesy service upon his and that the office of James G. Blake also had received copies of the notices and, for that reason, he took no step to review these matters with Mr. Blake.
The Court has very little patience with either Mr. Blake or with Mr. Soviero, for it is of the opinion that they both have been very lax in their obligations not only to the Attorney General, but to the Court. However, the Court cannot, in conscience, deny a day in court to the claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piscionere, Matter of
...in the context of CPLR 3126, a client should not be punished for the oversights of his attorney (see, e.g., Laurie v. State of New York, 49 Misc.2d 413, 267 N.Y.S.2d 546). The petitioner's contention that the court erred in deeming the objectant's motion to reargue one to renew is without m......