Drinkwater v. Bazemore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drinkwater v. Bazemore

141 A.D.2d 692, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7029

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

DecidedJune 20, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 692 (Drinkwater v. Bazemore) 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

Drinkwater v. Bazemore, 141 A.D.2d 692, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Walter Bazemore appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated October 29, 1987, which denied his motion, inter alia, for leave to amend his answer to allege the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and, upon such amendment, for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[693]*693The plaintiffs have pleaded, albeit inartfully, causes of action which sound in both assault and negligence. The summons and complaint were timely served (see, CPLR 203 [b] [5]), and any objections to service were waived. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Walter Bazemore appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated October 29, 1987, which denied his motion, inter alia, for leave to amend his answer to allege the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and, upon such amendment, for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[693]*693The plaintiffs have pleaded, albeit inartfully, causes of action which sound in both assault and negligence. The summons and complaint were timely served (see, CPLR 203 [b] [5]), and any objections to service were waived. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 692, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drinkwater-v-bazemore-nyappdiv-1988.