Legal Opinion

Di Bartolo v. American & Foreign Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1966PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJack Stanislaw, J.

Defendant moves to strike the complaint by reason of plaintiff’s willful nondisclosure.

During defendant’s examination of Di Bartolo, one of the plaintiffs, counsel objected and refused to allow his client to respond to a particular inquiry. That same day a ruling was sought. Plaintiff’s attorney arrived at chambers only after having been summoned there by a clerk’s telephone call. The ruling was that Di Bartolo answer the question propounded, but immediate resumption of the examination was impossible as his attorney had meanwhile permitted this plaintiff to return home. Therefore, the Justice…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cornell v. Mor-Nell Development Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Burbell v. BurmanNew York Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Mostow v. ShorrNew York Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Suncrest Dairy, Inc. v. La BellaNew York Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Gottlieb v. EdelsteinNew York Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Warner v. BumgarnerNew York Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Askinazy v. JacobsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  5. In re the Arbitration between Gretka & General Accident GroupNew York Supreme Court · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API