[Download] "Joseph M. Wahrhaftig Et Al. v. Space Design Group" by Supreme Court of New York * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Joseph M. Wahrhaftig Et Al. v. Space Design Group
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 22, 1970
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 70 KB

Description

[33 A.D.2d 953 Page 953] These four actions, finally consolidated by virtue of an order entered July 29, 1968, arise out of architectural work performed
by Blech & Goldfarb, a partnership, and interior decorating done by The Space Design Group, Inc., in connection with
the erection of a restaurant and cocktail lounge on premises allegedly of appellants at Monticello. In the action by Space
Design against appellants, pending in New York County before consolidation, an order was entered on December 12, 1966 granting
leave to examine appellants, the examination to be in New York County unless the action was removed to Sullivan County by
virtue of a motion then pending for the consolidation of said New York County action and another pending in Sullivan County.
Said two actions were consolidated by virtue of an order entered January 4, 1967 but the ordered examination was never conducted.
Depositions of appellants were taken in 1966 and 1968 in the two actions between appellants and Blech & Goldfarb, originally
without notice to Space Design and in which Space Design did not participate. Efforts were made by respondents' attorneys
to secure transcripts of the 1966 examinations but they were not received until March 25, 1969. On March 14, 1969 counsel
for Blech & Goldfarb filed a note of issue and statement of readiness, reciting that all preliminary procedures in the
actions between appellants and Blech & Goldfarb had been completed. Space Design followed on March 31, 1969 with the
instant motion to examine appellants, with production of the things as specified in the New York County order and, alternatively,
that the consolidated action be removed from, or remain on, the calendar. The supervision of disclosure is vested in the court
in which the action is pending (Smith v. Victory Container Corp., 30 A.D.2d 581), CPLR 3103 (subd. [a]) having been designed
to give the court broad discretion and powers to prevent the occasional abuse which may arise in a system of liberal disclosure
(Frey v. First Nat. Bank of Fleischmanns, 21 A.D.2d 709, 710; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3103.01). The
rigid enforcement of the statement of readiness rule (22 NYCRR 861.10) is to be encouraged (cf. Collins v. Jamestown Mut.
Ins. Co., 32 A.D.2d 725, 726) in order to relieve calendar congestion and to foster the orderly disposition and processing
of litigated matters and, while it will not be departed from in the absence of a showing of special, unusual or extraordinary
[33 A.D.2d 953 Page 954]

PDF Books "Joseph M. Wahrhaftig Et Al. v. Space Design Group" Online ePub Kindle