From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ehlin v. Piccola

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County
May 7, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 251 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

May 7, 1958

Gross Peters for defendant.

Raymond Sachs for plaintiffs.


Motion to strike case from trial calendar pending completion of an examination before trial is denied on condition that plaintiffs submit to such examination on May 20, 1958; otherwise granted. This motion is made within the requisite 20-day period provided in subdivision (5) of the special readiness rule (of App. Div., 2d Dept.). A lapse of two months after receipt of plaintiffs' bill of particulars before a request is made for their examination before trial is not unreasonable, since some time is needed to investigate facts recited in such bill of particulars. This is not to say that defendant may willfully prevent an action being placed on the trial calendar by unreasonably delaying a request for the examination.

Submit order.


Summaries of

Ehlin v. Piccola

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County
May 7, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 251 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Ehlin v. Piccola

Case Details

Full title:BONITA EHLIN, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem BEN EHLIN, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County

Date published: May 7, 1958

Citations

14 Misc. 2d 251 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
178 N.Y.S.2d 664

Citing Cases

Sheehan v. Abbate

The latter have not had ample opportunity to conduct an examination before trial, which they now seek. The…

Padula v. City of New York

The statement of readiness being insufficient and premature, the action is consequently stricken from the…