TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shairi v. Muratori

Houshang Shairi v. Alexander Muratori, Doing Business as Lido Motel

Shairi v. Muratori, 62 A.D.2d 947 (1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 13, 1978
Citations
62 A.D.2d 947404 N.Y.S.2d 141978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10958

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 16, 1977, granting defendant’s motion to take the deposition of Alexander Muratori, unanimously reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, without costs or disbursements. Issue was joined in this personal injury action on July 23, 1976 and a statement of readiness dated February 14, 1977 had been served. Pretrial conferences were held in September and October, 1977 and, ultimately, a trial date of November 18, 1977 was set. It was on November 18, the date set for trial and nine months after the statement of readiness was filed, that counsel for the defendant made an oral application for leave to take the deposition of the individual Alexander Muratori, and counsel was directed to make the application in writing. The motion, returnable December 9, 1977, alleged that the individual defendant was physically incapacitated, resided in Lake George, New York, and could not attend a deposition or trial in New York City. No medical affidavit was annexed to the application, and no unusual or unanticipated circumstances demonstrating the need for this belated deposition were alleged. Special Term nonetheless granted the motion. We would reverse. The poor physical condition of Muratori was concededly known to defendant for at least five years. Nonetheless, when the statement of readiness was filed, no motion was made to strike the action from the calendar for failure to complete depositions (22 NYCRR 660.4 [d] [3]), nor has the movant shown in his present papers that unusual or unanticipated conditions developed mandating the taking of a deposition (22 NYCRR 660.4 [d] [7] [i]). Since the defendant’s application did not demonstrate exigent circumstances in conformity with the court rules and, furthermore, since the trial of the action was imminent, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the relief requested. Concur— Evans, J. P., Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Franck v. Quinones65 A.D.2d 518 (1978)

Most recent

  1. Franck v. Quinones65 A.D.2d 518 (1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list