Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas
| Decision Date | 16 March 1971 |
| Citation | 319 N.Y.S.2d 84,36 A.D.2d 789 |
| Parties | WAYNE E. EDWARDS CORP., Respondent, v. Angelos P. ROMAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles J. Bellew, Johnson City, for respondent.
Angelos Peter Romas, Endicott (Nestor, Nestor & Totolis Endicott, of counsel), for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, GREENBLOTT, COOKE and SIMONS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County, entered March 9, 1970, which granted plaintiff's motion for a
In this action for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien, the summons and complaint were served on April 24, 1969, the answer on May 7, 1969 and the note of issue with a statement of readiness was filed on May 20, 1969. The case was marked ready for trial on October 1, 1969, a pretrial conference was scheduled for October 29, 1969 and, upon the nonappearance of defendant's attorney, the matter was adjourned to the December 1969 Trial Term. On December 5, 1969 defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars and a notice for an examination before trial.
Defendant having failed to move to strike the case from the calendar within 30 days after the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed and served (22 NYCRR 861.10(c)) and absent a factual showing of unusual and unanticipated conditions, there was a waiver of his right to pursue proceedings for disclosure (Liberty Dressing Co. v. Foster Sportswear Co., 14 A.D.2d 196, 197, 217 N.Y.S.2d 741, 742--743) and a bill of particulars (Cerrone v. S'Doia, 11 A.D.2d 350, 352, 206 N.Y.S.2d 95, 96--97) and the discretion of the County Court should not be disturbed (cf. Wahrhaftig v. Space Design Group, 33 A.D.2d 953, 306 N.Y.S.2d 863).
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosca v. Pensky
...548, 271 N.Y.S.2d 605; Williams v. N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 590, 256 N.Y.S.2d 708), bills 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 rul......
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Board of Assessment Review of Town of Niskayuna
...to pursue disclosure proceedings because it failed to move within the permissible time limit to strike the case (see Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84). However, despite petitioners' assertion to the contrary, this record fails to disclose any note of issue or statement......
-
Haviland by Haviland v. Smith
...Beach Tr. Co., 55 A.D.2d 1001, 391 N.Y.S.2d 925; Belski v. New York Cent. R.R., 38 A.D.2d 882, 329 N.Y.S.2d 345; Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84; Barnett v. Ferguson, 29 A.D.2d 525, 285 N.Y.S.2d Order affirmed, with costs. ...
-
Pandori v. Fortune
...an examination before trial (Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880, 325 N.Y.S.2d 145), bills of particulars (Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84) and other preliminary proceedings (see, cases cited in Mosca v. Pensky, 73 Misc.2d 144, 146-147, 341 N.Y.S.2d 219, 222-2......