Alchus v. Ayers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alchus v. Ayers

57 A.D.2d 881, 394 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 881 (Alchus v. Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alchus v. Ayers, 57 A.D.2d 881, 394 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Huff Auto Body, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 27, 1976, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant seeks, by the proposed amendment, to deny that defendant Ayers had its permission to operate the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident, as is alleged in the complaint. Plaintiffs-respondents’ ability to investigate the facts attendant upon such a denial is considerably altered by the change which has occurred since the time of the original pleading, to wit, defendant Ayers is now in prison. Permission to amend was, for that reason, properly denied (see De Fabio v Nadler Rental Serv., 27 AD2d 931). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Huff Auto Body, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 27, 1976, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant seeks, by the proposed amendment, to deny that defendant Ayers had its permission to operate the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident, as is alleged in the complaint. Plaintiffs-respondents’ ability to investigate the facts attendant upon such a denial is considerably altered by the change which has occurred since the time of the original pleading, to wit, defendant Ayers is now in prison. Permission to amend was, for that reason, properly denied (see De Fabio v Nadler Rental Serv., 27 AD2d 931). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 881, 394 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alchus-v-ayers-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack