Rudolph v. Bowling Corp. of Plainview
| Decision Date | 06 August 1971 |
| Citation | 324 N.Y.S.2d 448,67 Misc.2d 463 |
| Parties | Benjamin RUDOLPH et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOWLING CORP. OF PLAINVIEW and Plainview Bowl Associates, a Partnership, Defendants. BOWLING CORP. OF PLAINVIEW, Plaintiff, v. CROSSROADS AT PLAINVIEW, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This motion by defendant in Action No. 2 for an order to compel plaintiff in Action No. 1 to answer interrogatories is denied.
We are aware that while issue in Action No. 1 was joined in October 1969, Action No. 2 was not begun until December of 1970 and issue there joined in March 1971. A joint trial of the actions has been directed which would indicate that there are issues of law and fact common to both. There were two orders directing joinder. Apparently the first order was made April 26, 1971 on default and the second on June 7, 1971 on a rehearing. The note of issue and statement of readiness in Action No. 2 was filed on May 24, 1971. On June 1, 1971 the case appeared on the calendar and at the request of one of the parties it was adjourned for trial to August 9th. The moving defendant here had ample opportunity in which to make the present application or to make an application to strike the statement of readiness. Under the circumstances we may not deviate from the requirement that the statement of readiness rule (22 NYCRR 675.7) must be strictly enforced in the absence of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances (Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, 33 A.D.2d 953, 306 N.Y.S.2d 863).
We note also that pleadings have not been submitted although a fair interpretation of 22 NYCRR 785.16 would require that marked pleadings should accompany all applications to the court affecting a disclosure device.
We have set forth the reasons for the denial of the application. However, an objection made by an attorney for the plaintiff in Action No. 1 merits comment. He urges that the defendant in Action No. 2 cannot ask plaintiff to supply interrogatories because that defendant is not a party to Action No. 1. This is a rather strict construction of CPLR 3130 which we would not favor if the question were before us for determination. We would think that where actions are joined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...of particulars (Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84) and answers to interrogatories (Rudolph v. Bowling Corp., 67 Misc.2d 463, 324 N.Y.S.2d 448). Additionally, the rule has been held applicable on motions for discovery and inspection of designated items such as p......
- Donovan v. Board of Elections of Nassau County and/or Com'rs of Election of Nassau County
-
Nussdorf v. Howell
...and reason' (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 452, 235 N.E.2d 430, 432).' (Rudolph v. Bowling Corp., 67 Misc.2d 463, 324 N.Y.S.2d 448.) While there is language indicating that special circumstances should be present in order to induce the court to ord......
-
Hawkins v. Genesee Hospital
...201), as well as a defendant against the plaintiff in another action where the two actions have been joined (Rudolph v. Bowling Corp. of Plainview, 67 Misc.2d 463, 324 N.Y.S.2d 448). There is no requirement in the CPLR that the evidence sought to be obtained be admissible against the party ......