Becannon v. Smith

31 A.D.2d 810, 298 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 810 (Becannon v. Smith) 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
Becannon v. Smith, 31 A.D.2d 810, 298 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant Smith from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 17, 1967, in favor of plaintiff. The appeal has brought up for review the. portion of the order of said court dated July 12, 1967 which, on plaintiff’s motion, struck out appellant’s answer. Judgment reversed and order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law -and the facts, with $50 costs and' disbursements to plaintiff; and plaintiff’s motion to strike out appellant’s answer denied, on condition that appellant (a) give an undertaking of $10,000, with corporate surety, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, that he will pay any judgment which plaintiff may procure against him in this action;, (b) will submit to examination and produce books and papers, in accordance with the order dated March 10, 1967, at a time set forth in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff; and (e) pay the .costs and disbursements of this appeal within 10 days after service of a copy of the bill of costs, as taxed, with notice of the taxation. Under all the circumstances, in our opinion the interests of justice require that appellant have his day in court upon compliance with the terms and conditions above set forth. The court notes that the record submitted on this appeal contained numerous errors, was in many respects incomplete, and that its contents were arranged without chronological or logical sequence, so that the court had the burdensome task of untangling [811]*811and mastering the facts necessary ito a fair consideration of the appeal. Such practice is a violation of the rules and an imposition on the court (cf. Lo Gerfo v. Lo Gerfo, 30 A D 2d 156). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseelló, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chapin v. City of White Plains
104 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.2d 810, 298 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becannon-v-smith-nyappdiv-1969.