From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zoellner v. Neumann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 17, 1956
1 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Opinion

April 17, 1956


Since it does not appear that defendants will be seriously prejudiced if the relief sought is granted, we feel that in the interests of justice the motion for the issuance of a commission should be granted. We appreciate that defendants are justified in complaining of plaintiff's delay. It would seem, however, that neither side has made any effort to dispose of this lawsuit expeditiously. Defendants could have accelerated matters by a motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to prosecute diligently, but instead they were content to let the action remain dormant. In these circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that the testimony sought seems vital to plaintiff's case, we think the court's discretion should be exercised so as to permit the deposition even at this late date. Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted, without costs. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Peck, P.J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.


Summaries of

Zoellner v. Neumann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 17, 1956
1 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)
Case details for

Zoellner v. Neumann

Case Details

Full title:ELSBETH ZOELLNER, Appellant, v. GERHARD P.H. NEUMANN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 17, 1956

Citations

1 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Dunn v. Evening Star Newspaper Company

Because of the inherent discretion vested in the trial judge in ruling on objections to interrogatories, his…