TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maloney v. National Cleaning Contractors

Catherine Maloney v. National Cleaning Contractors

Maloney v. Nat'l Cleaning Contractors, 105 A.D.2d 653 (1984)
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
November 20, 1984
Citations
105 A.D.2d 653481 N.Y.S.2d 7101984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20759

Opinion of the Court

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (L. I. Kaplan, J.), entered April 11, 1984, denying defendants’ motion to strike the case from the Trial Calendar on condition that physical examination be completed by June 22,1984, is unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar is granted.

The Special Term, Part 8A, order of January 6,1984 required plaintiffs to furnish a supplemental bill of particulars as to item 19 within 30 days after completion of the examinations before trial and to include an update of special damages, to furnish medical reports or authorizations for records and to furnish hospital authorizations by February 6, 1984. It also directed examination of plaintiffs to be held within 60 days. On March 6, 1984 defendants’ attorneys furnished the names of examining doctors and requested plaintiffs’ attorneys to contact the doctors to schedule appointments. At the time of the service of the certificate of readiness on March 9, 1984, the supplemental bill of particulars and the reports and authorizations had not been furnished, and the physical examinations had not taken place. Yet the certificate of readiness said “Bills of particulars served”; “physical examinations completed”; “medical reports exchanged”. These statements were incorrect and no acceptable excuse has been furnished for the incorrectness.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the action from the calendar should have been granted. (Ortiz v Valdescastilla, 98 AD2d 610 ; Arroyo v City of New York, 86 AD2d 521 ; Rules of Supreme Ct of Bronx and New York Counties, 22 NYCRR 660.4 [d] [4] [iii]; see Bookazine Co. v J & A Bindery, 61 AD2d 919 .) Concur — Asch, J. P., Silverman, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

1985: 11986: 11990: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Savino v. Lewittes160 A.D.2d 176 (1990)
  2. Heritage Knitwear, Inc. v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.115 A.D.2d 389 (1985)
  3. H & Y Realty Co. v. Baron121 A.D.2d 238 (1986)

Most recent

  1. Savino v. Lewittes160 A.D.2d 176 (1990)
  2. H & Y Realty Co. v. Baron121 A.D.2d 238 (1986)
  3. Heritage Knitwear, Inc. v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.115 A.D.2d 389 (1985)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Bookazine Co. v. J & A Bindery, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 919 (1978) 5
Arroyo v. City of N.Y., 86 A.D.2d 521 (1982) 5
Ortiz v. Valdescastilla, 98 A.D.2d 610 (1983) 5

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