Bailey v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bailey v. Morgan

54 A.D.2d 991, 388 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14950

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 991 (Bailey v. Morgan) 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

Bailey v. Morgan, 54 A.D.2d 991, 388 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered [992]*992November 3, 1975 in Washington County, which granted defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Plaintiffs’ action is one to obtain specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of certain real property. We do not find defendant guilty of gross laches in seeking to amend his answer so as to raise the defense of the Statute of Frauds and plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate how they will be prejudiced by the assertion of such a defense. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion committed by Special Term in allowing defendant to amend his answer (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Price v Gifidn, 32 AD2d 868). Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Kane, Mahoney, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered [992]*992November 3, 1975 in Washington County, which granted defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Plaintiffs’ action is one to obtain specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of certain real property. We do not find defendant guilty of gross laches in seeking to amend his answer so as to raise the defense of the Statute of Frauds and plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate how they will be prejudiced by the assertion of such a defense. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion committed by Special Term in allowing defendant to amend his answer (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Price v Gifidn, 32 AD2d 868). Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Kane, Mahoney, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 991, 388 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-morgan-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack