History
  • No items yet
midpage
Zoellner v. Neumann
150 N.Y.S.2d 31
N.Y. App. Div.
1956
Check Treatment

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. *942It would seem, however, that neither side has made any effort to dispose oi 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 — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Cox, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Zoellner v. Neumann
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Apr 17, 1956
Citation: 150 N.Y.S.2d 31
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.