Van Blarcom v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 28 June 1960 |
| Citation | 202 N.Y.S.2d 441,11 A.D.2d 678 |
| Parties | Frances VAN BLARCOM and Herbert Van Blarcom, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Leonard G. ROGERS, as Executor Under the Last Will and Testament of the Estate of Julia Rogers, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
G. A. Grabow, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
R. W. Steele, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, VALENTE and BERGAN, JJ.
Order dated March 30, 1960 granting plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint and bill of particulars unanimously affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents.
Order dated April 14, 1960 granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to examine witnesses by written interrogatories unanimously affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents.
The defendant's principal objection is not to the relief granted but rather that the same was not conditioned upon the striking of the certificate of readiness and the removal of the cause from the calendar. We have heretofore held that the Court has some discretion in ordering or refusing to order a certificate of readiness stricken (McGuire v. Pick, 8 A.D.2d 800, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893). While it would have been proper for Special Term to have granted the relief upon condition that the certificate be stricken we do not believe that the failure to do so constituted an abuse of discretion. However, in affirming Special Term's unconditional granting of the relief sought we in no way detract from our stated position that generally the readiness rule must be strictly enforced (Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204, 181 N.Y.S.2d 661; McGuire v. Pick, supra). The circumstances here present are such that the relief sought may be granted without doing violence to the rule and its purpose. The addition of allegations of ordinary negligence to those of gross negligence originally pleaded will not after the basic factual issues to be tried. Nor does the granting of the interrogatories at this time run contrary to the rule. This is not the usual situation where one belatedly decides to examine an adverse party where, in possession of all needed information, he had a full opportunity to do so before having filed the readiness certificate. Leave to examine after a certificate of readiness has been filed will only be granted where special and unusual circumstances are present. Such leave was granted in McGuire v. Pick, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...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, Supra). Under unusual circumstances disclosure may be had after the......
-
Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, Inc.
...doing violence to the rule (cf. Web Transmissions v. Jetro Automatic Transmission, 20 A.D.2d 902, 249 N.Y.S.2d 17; Van Blarcom v. Rogers, 11 A.D.2d 678, 2002 N.Y.S.2d 441). The waiver rule is not applicable here since respondent made a timely motion after the case was noticed for trial (cf.......
-
Bierzynsky v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...800, #16, 187 N.Y.S.2d 893); certain non-resident, non-party witnesses refused to appear at the trial as anticipated (Van Blarcom v. Rogers, 1st Dept., 11 A.D.2d 678, #8, 679, 202 N.Y.S.2d 441, 442); a pleading was amended substantially increasing the Ad damnum clause (Falkenstein v. Heyman......
-
Looker v. Hennessy
...instant case, of course, we substitute the name 'defendant 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......