Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. Wolinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. Wolinsky

25 A.D.2d 846, 271 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116

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

DecidedMay 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 846 (Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. Wolinsky) 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

Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. Wolinsky, 25 A.D.2d 846, 271 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered February 3, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and the motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint is granted, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. The incidents of rat bites, alleged to have occurred, were on the same premises, the action is between the same parties, the basic qustions involved are the same, and only the time lapse between the events is offered to support the claim of possible prejudice. This argument upon examination is found to be of little merit, for under proper circumstances the jury might be made aware of the incidents (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 201). Wherever warranted leave to serve a supplemental complaint should be freely granted upon such terms as may be just (GPLR 3025).

Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ,

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

Order entered February 3, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and the motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint is granted, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. The incidents of rat bites, alleged to have occurred, were on the same premises, the action is between the same parties, the basic qustions involved are the same, and only the time lapse between the events is offered to support the claim of possible prejudice. This argument upon examination is found to be of little merit, for under proper circumstances the jury might be made aware of the incidents (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 201). Wherever warranted leave to serve a supplemental complaint should be freely granted upon such terms as may be just (GPLR 3025).

Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 846, 271 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-ex-rel-cleveland-v-wolinsky-nyappdiv-1966.