Folsom Corp. v. Korvettes Division of Spartans Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Folsom Corp. v. Korvettes Division of Spartans Industries, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 574, 382 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150

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

DecidedApril 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 574 (Folsom Corp. v. Korvettes Division of Spartans Industries, Inc.) 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

Folsom Corp. v. Korvettes Division of Spartans Industries, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 574, 382 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover the balance due for goods sold and delivered, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 7, 1976, as denied its motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Order [575]*575affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The death of the witness through whom defendant’s depositions were taken and the delay of 40 months between the completion of disclosure proceedings and the making of the motion to amend when the case was called for trial would have resulted in "substantial prejudice” had the motion been granted: appellant’s "gross laches” warranted the denial of the motion (see De Fabio v Nadler Rental Serv., 27 AD2d 931). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover the balance due for goods sold and delivered, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 7, 1976, as denied its motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Order [575]*575affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The death of the witness through whom defendant’s depositions were taken and the delay of 40 months between the completion of disclosure proceedings and the making of the motion to amend when the case was called for trial would have resulted in "substantial prejudice” had the motion been granted: appellant’s "gross laches” warranted the denial of the motion (see De Fabio v Nadler Rental Serv., 27 AD2d 931). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 574, 382 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folsom-corp-v-korvettes-division-of-spartans-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack