From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller v. Lustgarten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 3, 1969
32 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

July 3, 1969


Order, entered March 26, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice to renewal upon a proper factual showing warranting a departure from the statement of readiness rule. (Rules of the Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties, part 1, rule IV; 22 NYCRR 660.4.) Plaintiff's motion for a discovery and inspection of photographs alleged to have been taken by defendant at or about the time of the accident, was made two years after the accident and one year after a statement of readiness had been filed. The present record fails to show the requisite unusual or unanticipated conditions which permit relaxation of the statement of readiness rule. The motion should therefore have been denied. ( Pioneer Jewelry Corp. v. All Continent Corp., 24 A.D.2d 436; Jacobs v. Peress, 23 A.D.2d 483; McGuire v. Pick, 8 A.D.2d 800; Price v. Brody, 7 A.D.2d 204.)

Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.


Summaries of

Muller v. Lustgarten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 3, 1969
32 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Muller v. Lustgarten

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED S. MULLER, Respondent, v. BAIER LUSTGARTEN, Individually and Doing…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 3, 1969

Citations

32 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
301 N.Y.S.2d 663

Citing Cases

Mosca v. Pensky

Consequently, in the absence of special circumstances and after expiration of the time to move to vacate the…

Mazzuka v. Long Island Rail Road

In fact, it was not until January 26, 1976, the day after a jury had been selected, that plaintiff decided to…