Dittenhoefer v. De Courcy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dittenhoefer v. De Courcy

26 A.D.2d 941, 275 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 941 (Dittenhoefer v. De Courcy) 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

Dittenhoefer v. De Courcy, 26 A.D.2d 941, 275 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by two plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from alleged separate assaults by dogs owned by defendants, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 7, 1966, which denied their motion for a severance of plaintiffs’ respective causes of action and to direct the service of separate amended complaints. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted and each plaintiff is directed to serve her separate amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by two plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from alleged separate assaults by dogs owned by defendants, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 7, 1966, which denied their motion for a severance of plaintiffs’ respective causes of action and to direct the service of separate amended complaints. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted and each plaintiff is directed to serve her separate amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 941, 275 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dittenhoefer-v-de-courcy-nyappdiv-1966.