Birnbaum v. Birnbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birnbaum v. Birnbaum

155 A.D.2d 326, 547 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14087

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 326 (Birnbaum v. Birnbaum) 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

Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 155 A.D.2d 326, 547 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 30, 1989, granting plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint. Defendant fails to demonstrate that plaintiff’s delay in asserting the additional cause of action substantially impaired his ability to respond to it. (See, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 3025.14, at 30-607.) Nor are we persuaded that plaintiffs counsel intentionally deceived opposing counsel; in any event, the conduct would not warrant denial of the motion. Further, we conclude that for purposes of the motion, the complaint sufficiently pleads, and plaintiffs affidavit adequately supports, a cause of action for divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment. Concur — Milonas, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 30, 1989, granting plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint. Defendant fails to demonstrate that plaintiff’s delay in asserting the additional cause of action substantially impaired his ability to respond to it. (See, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 3025.14, at 30-607.) Nor are we persuaded that plaintiffs counsel intentionally deceived opposing counsel; in any event, the conduct would not warrant denial of the motion. Further, we conclude that for purposes of the motion, the complaint sufficiently pleads, and plaintiffs affidavit adequately supports, a cause of action for divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment. Concur — Milonas, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 326, 547 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birnbaum-v-birnbaum-nyappdiv-1989.