You are here: / / Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the...
,

Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the Matters Stated Therein—Notice Improperly Sought Admissions that Went to the Heart of the Controversy

12The Second Department determined defendants’ failure to timely respond to plaintiff’s notice to admit was not an admission of the matters stated therein because the notice sought admissions which went to the heart of the controversy:

“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his notice to admit improperly sought the defendants’ admissions concerning a matter that went to the heart of the controversy in this case … . Since the admissions sought were improper, the defendants’ failure to timely respond to the subject notice should not be deemed an admission of the matters stated therein … . Williams v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01268, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
Criteria for “Trivial Defect” and “Open and Obvious” Explained
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
A PRESENTENCE REPORT MUST BE CREATED FOR EACH OFFENSE; HERE THE JUDGE USED A PRESENTENCE REPORT PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT UNRELATED OFFENSE; THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO OPPOSES VACCINATING THE CHILD, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND VIOLENT CONDUCT MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action
AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log... Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not Given Res Judicata ...