Federal Insurance v. Linus Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Federal Insurance v. Linus Realty Corp.

73 A.D.2d 586, 423 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 586 (Federal Insurance v. Linus Realty Corp.) 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

Federal Insurance v. Linus Realty Corp., 73 A.D.2d 586, 423 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, reversed, to the extent appealed from, in the exercise of discretion, and defendant-appellant Linus Realty Corporation’s motion for leave to amend its answer granted, on condition that, within 20 days after service of the order entered hereon, defendant shall pay to plaintiffs one bill of $250 in costs, and to respondents Fried & Fried, Inc., United Display Products, Inc., Tetramatics, Ltd., and Sidney Bernstein, doing business as Artistic Design Pleasure Hours, Inc., $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal, and should such payments of costs not be made as specified, the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal to said respondents. The incident basic to this case occurred in August, 1974 and this action was commenced in January, 1976. In July, 1978 the action was consolidated with another, and an order made that all examinations be completed shortly thereafter. In February, 1979 defendant made the instant motion for leave to amend the answer to interpose a defense of waiver. In so moving, defendant blamed plaintiffs attorneys for delay in failing to provide it with a copy of the leases involved in this case. It was not until defendant found its own mislaid copies that it discovered a separate allegedly meritorious defense based on waiver, and moved for leave to amend. Defendant was at fault and is responsible for delay of the trial. But a valid reason for amendment is stated and, in any event, discovery hás still not been completed. Plaintiff, having possession of the leases, is not surprised by the proposed amendment and will not be prejudiced. However, a sanction for causing the delay by mislaying the papers is in order. Concur—Bloom, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, reversed, to the extent appealed from, in the exercise of discretion, and defendant-appellant Linus Realty Corporation’s motion for leave to amend its answer granted, on condition that, within 20 days after service of the order entered hereon, defendant shall pay to plaintiffs one bill of $250 in costs, and to respondents Fried & Fried, Inc., United Display Products, Inc., Tetramatics, Ltd., and Sidney Bernstein, doing business as Artistic Design Pleasure Hours, Inc., $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal, and should such payments of costs not be made as specified, the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal to said respondents. The incident basic to this case occurred in August, 1974 and this action was commenced in January, 1976. In July, 1978 the action was consolidated with another, and an order made that all examinations be completed shortly thereafter. In February, 1979 defendant made the instant motion for leave to amend the answer to interpose a defense of waiver. In so moving, defendant blamed plaintiffs attorneys for delay in failing to provide it with a copy of the leases involved in this case. It was not until defendant found its own mislaid copies that it discovered a separate allegedly meritorious defense based on waiver, and moved for leave to amend. Defendant was at fault and is responsible for delay of the trial. But a valid reason for amendment is stated and, in any event, discovery hás still not been completed. Plaintiff, having possession of the leases, is not surprised by the proposed amendment and will not be prejudiced. However, a sanction for causing the delay by mislaying the papers is in order. Concur—Bloom, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 586, 423 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-insurance-v-linus-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1979.