English v. English

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

English v. English

30 A.D.2d 656, 292 N.Y.S.2d 357

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

DecidedJune 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 656 (English v. English) 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

English v. English, 30 A.D.2d 656, 292 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on March 27, 1968, conditionally granting motion for leave to serve amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice, if plaintiff is so aadvised, to the institution of a new action for annulment on grounds different from those pleaded in the original complaint. The introduction, at this advanced stage of the litigation, of so variant a complaint, on the basis of affidavits containing no factual showing of merit and but a perfunctory explanation of the delay, is in our opinion without substantial justification. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered on March 27, 1968, conditionally granting motion for leave to serve amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice, if plaintiff is so aadvised, to the institution of a new action for annulment on grounds different from those pleaded in the original complaint. The introduction, at this advanced stage of the litigation, of so variant a complaint, on the basis of affidavits containing no factual showing of merit and but a perfunctory explanation of the delay, is in our opinion without substantial justification. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 656, 292 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-english-nyappdiv-1968.