Crombie v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crombie v. Miller

14 A.D.2d 895, 221 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1961·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[896] In our opinion the denial of the motion five years after the accident was a proper exercise of discretion. At such a late date the granting of the motion would have substantially impaired defendants’ rights (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 166; Feizi v. Second Russian Ins. Co., 199 App. Div. 775). The trial court was not required to permit an amendment of the pleadings which would radically change the theory upon which recovery was originally sought (Berkenstat v. Oliver, 275 App. Div. 679, and cases cited therein). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

[896] In our opinion the denial of the motion five years after the accident was a proper exercise of discretion. At such a late date the granting of the motion would have substantially impaired defendants’ rights (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 166; Feizi v. Second Russian Ins. Co., 199 App. Div. 775). The trial court was not required to permit an amendment of the pleadings which would radically change the theory upon which recovery was originally sought (Berkenstat v. Oliver, 275 App. Div. 679, and cases cited therein). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Crombie v. Miller, 14 A.D.2d 895, 221 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

14 A.D.2d 895 (Crombie v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related