Sado v. Sado
| Decision Date | 14 April 1969 |
| Citation | 32 A.D.2d 546,299 N.Y.S.2d 743 |
| Parties | Maurice D. SADO, Respondent, v. Shirley Reed SADO, Individually and as Executrix, etc., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Hoffman, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent; Samuel S. Kolman, New York City, of counsel.
Edward Gettinger and Peter Gettinger, New York City, for defendants-appellants; Ronald Gene Wohl, New York City, of counsel.
Before BRENNAN, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, BENJAMIN, MUNDER and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendants from four orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, namely, (1) from an order dated October 25, 1968, which denied defendants' motion to vacate plaintiff's note of issue and statement of readiness; (2) from an order dated October 17, 1968, which Inter alia granted plaintiff's cross motion to vacate defendants' notice to take plaintiff's pretrial deposition; (3) as limited by defendants' brief, from so much of an order dated October 23, 1968 as, on reargument of the aforesaid two motions, adhered to the original determinations; and (4) an order dated November 14, 1968, which granted plaintiff's motion to vacate defendants' jury demand and to strike the action from the jury calendar.
Order of October 23, 1968 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion; defendants' motion to vacate plaintiff's note of issue and statement of readiness granted; and plaintiff's cross motion to vacate defendants' notice to take his pretrial deposition denied. Appeals from orders of October 17, 1968, October 25, 1968 and November 14, 1968 dismissed. Appellants are allowed a single bill of $20 costs and disbursements to cover all the appeals.
On this record, it is our opinion that plaintiff served and filed his note of issue and statement of readiness before defendants had a reasonable opportunity to conduct their pretrial discovery proceedings; and that it would be unfair to compel defendants to go to trial in this protracted, complicated dispute without a pretrial examination of plaintiff, particularly because plaintiff has had the benefit of pretrial examinations of defendants and their witness, covering a four-year period and resulting in almost 1300 pages of testimony. Hence, plaintiff's note of issue and statement of readiness should be vacated and his motion to vacate defendants' notice to take his pretrial deposition should be denied.
The appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavacos v. Sarwar
...Metzger, 375 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla.App.1979); Farwell v. Neal, 40 Mich.App. 351, 354, 198 N.W.2d 801, 803 (1972); Sado v. Sado, 299 N.Y.S.2d 743, 745, 32 A.D.2d 546, 546 (1969); Sanguinetti v. Strecker, 94 Nev. 200, 208, 577 P.2d 404, 409-10 (1978); and Airfare, Inc. v. Greenville Airport Com......
-
Taubman Company, Inc. v. Getty Square Plaza Corporation
...was superseded by the order of March 11, 1974 (Matter of Bauer v. City of New York, 33 A.D.2d 784, 307 N.Y.S.2d 183; Sado v. Sado, 32 A.D.2d 546, 299 N.Y.S.2d 743). Order entered March 11, 1974, affirmed, 77 Misc.2d 461, 353 N.Y.S.2d 861 insofar as appealed from. No opinion. Respondent Gett......
-
Rembert v. Lipshutz
...a reasonable opportunity to complete disclosure and notice a physical or mental examination of the infant plaintiff (see Sado v. Sado, 32 A.D.2d 546, 299 N.Y.S.2d 743; Siegel, New York Practice, § 370; see, also, 22 NYCRR 3.5, 1024.4). The court's broad discretionary power under CPLR 3103 t......
-
L. C. J. Realty Corp. v. Back
... ... Co. v. Roreck, 23 A.D.2d 895, 260 N.Y.S.2d 245; Sado v. Sado, ... 32 A.D.2d 546, 299 N.Y.S.2d 743; 7 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 49:57, p. 553). Moreover, the answer of defendants Back ... ...