Bram v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bram v. City of New York

7 A.D.2d 641, 179 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4281

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 641 (Bram v. City of New York) 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

Bram v. City of New York, 7 A.D.2d 641, 179 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages resulting from the alleged encroachment of an elevated rapid transit station owned by defendant the City of New York and operated by defendant the New York City Transit Authority, and from the maintenance of an embankment on plaintiff’s land supporting the station, the defendant city appeals from an order denying its motion for leave to amend its answer. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer is to be served, if appellant be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages resulting from the alleged encroachment of an elevated rapid transit station owned by defendant the City of New York and operated by defendant the New York City Transit Authority, and from the maintenance of an embankment on plaintiff’s land supporting the station, the defendant city appeals from an order denying its motion for leave to amend its answer. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The amended answer is to be served, if appellant be so advised, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 641, 179 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bram-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1958.