Crescenzo v. McCabe Powers Body Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crescenzo v. McCabe Powers Body Co.

110 A.D.2d 619, 487 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48514

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

DecidedApril 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 619 (Crescenzo v. McCabe Powers Body Co.) 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

Crescenzo v. McCabe Powers Body Co., 110 A.D.2d 619, 487 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a third-party action, third-party defendant, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), served a demand for a verified bill of particulars on the third-party plaintiff, Cascade Corporation, on February 23,1981. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated May 13, 1981, LILCO moved, inter alia, for an order of preclusion based on the failure of Cascade to serve the bill of particulars. Trial Term (Underwood, J.) granted a 20-day conditional order of preclusion on October 19, 1981. Cascade’s failure to comply with the order of Justice Underwood resulted in the order of final preclusion appealed from.

Cascade has failed to establish a reasonable excuse for such failure or make a prima facie showing of merit to its claims (see, Bailey v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 91 AD2d 967, affd 59 NY2d 748). Furthermore, LILCO has demonstrated prejudice in the inordinate delay involved and in its surprise when counsel for Cascade, in outlining his position after the jury was selected, set forth for the first time a claim of abuse of machinery. In these circumstances, the order appealed from constituted a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.

[620]*620We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a third-party action, third-party defendant, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), served a demand for a verified bill of particulars on the third-party plaintiff, Cascade Corporation, on February 23,1981. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated May 13, 1981, LILCO moved, inter alia, for an order of preclusion based on the failure of Cascade to serve the bill of particulars. Trial Term (Underwood, J.) granted a 20-day conditional order of preclusion on October 19, 1981. Cascade’s failure to comply with the order of Justice Underwood resulted in the order of final preclusion appealed from.

Cascade has failed to establish a reasonable excuse for such failure or make a prima facie showing of merit to its claims (see, Bailey v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 91 AD2d 967, affd 59 NY2d 748). Furthermore, LILCO has demonstrated prejudice in the inordinate delay involved and in its surprise when counsel for Cascade, in outlining his position after the jury was selected, set forth for the first time a claim of abuse of machinery. In these circumstances, the order appealed from constituted a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.

[620]*620We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 619, 487 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crescenzo-v-mccabe-powers-body-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack