McGuire v. Pick
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Parties | Mae McGUIRE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Emil PICK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. R. Hawthorne, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
H. R. Eisenberg, Ridgewood, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, M. M. FRANK, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.
Order of February 27, 1959 granting plaintiff's motion to vacate defendant's notice to examine plaintiff before trial and to strike defendant's answer and denying defendant's cross motion in branch, modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to deny so much of the motion as sought to vacate the notice of examination, and to grant so much of the cross motion as sought to stay all proceedings until plaintiff complies with Rule 9-a of the Rules of Civil Practice, without costs to either party. Order of March 13, 1959 denying so much of defendant's cross motion, in branch, as sought to strike the cause from the general jury calendar reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the cross-motion, in branch, granted without costs to either party. Generally, the rule governing readiness certificates should be strictly enforced (Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204, 181 N.Y.S.2d 661). However, rigid adherence to technical rules of procedure may not be permitted to interfere with the interests of substantial justice (Civil Practice Act § 105). That is never the purpose of such rules and the court is always possessed of power to prevent such effect. In this case the certificate of readiness was served and filed, apparently through a misunderstanding between counsel, while defendant's counsel, to the knowledge of plaintiff's counsel, was about to leave on an extended vacation. Actually, the certificate of readiness was served on December 22, 1958. On that day defendant served his notice to examine plaintiff before trial. On December 23, 1958 the certificate was filed. In the meantime, defendant's lawyer left the country on a vacation. On the day after the latter's return, plaintiff moved to vacate defendant's notice. Moreover, the unusual nature of plaintiff's claims makes extremely desirable, for the benefit of the trial court as well as the adversary, the examination of plaintiff before trial. Thus, while the special rule is and will be rigorously enforced, it will be relaxed when such extraordinary circumstances are present. It has never been questioned that, if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...adherence to technical rules of procedure may not be permitted to interfere with the interests of substantial justice' (McGuire v. Pick, 8 A.D.2d 800, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893; see Van Blarcom v. Rogers, 11 A.D.2d 678, 202 N.Y.S.2d 441; Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204, 206, 181 N.Y.S.2d 661, 664, Supr......
-
Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, Inc.
...29 A.D.2d 840, 287 N.Y.S.2d 732; Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A.D.2d 436, 260 N.Y.S.2d 700; McGuire v. Pick, 8 A.D.2d 800, 801, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893, 895; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., The discretion of Special Term should not be disturbed since: examinations befor......
-
Bierzynsky v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...Co., Inc., 1st Dept., 5 A.D.2d 863, #7, 864, 171 N.Y.S.2d 292, 293); the defendant's lawyer left the country on a vacation (McGuire v. Pick, 1st Dept., 8 A.D.2d 800, #16, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893); certain non-resident, non-party witnesses refused to appear at the trial as anticipated (Van Blarcom ......
-
Looker v. Hennessy
...Crowell' for 'plaintiff' in the Amkraut case. See also Van Blarcom v. Rogers, 11 A.D.2d 678, 202 N.Y.S.2d 441; McGuire v. Pick, 8 A.D.2d 800, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893. In the instant case, the Court does not rest its determination solely on the possible fact of the presence of special and unusual c......