Gigliotti v. Morasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gigliotti v. Morasco

2 A.D.2d 653, 152 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196

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

DecidedMay 25, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 A.D.2d 653 (Gigliotti v. Morasco) 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

Gigliotti v. Morasco, 2 A.D.2d 653, 152 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant against the respondent. Memorandum: We assume that the plight of the plaintiff arising out of failure of her attorney to comply with rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice was considered by the Special Term in the exercise of its discretion to vacate the preclusion order and permit the service of a bill of particulars. Failure to comply with the rule invariably jeopardizes the rights of the litigant and may result in the loss of such rights. Counsel who persist in such practice may sooner or later be called upon to answer for their conduct in disciplinary proceedings. Fortunately, in this instance no serious harm appears to have resulted to the defendant. There is every indication that the Special Term gave serious consideration to the matter and we feel constrained to sustain its discretion and affirm the order. All concur except Vaughan J., who dissents and votes for reversal and denial of the motion. (Appeal from an order of Oneida. [654]*654Special Term vacating an order of preclusion and permitting plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant against the respondent. Memorandum: We assume that the plight of the plaintiff arising out of failure of her attorney to comply with rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice was considered by the Special Term in the exercise of its discretion to vacate the preclusion order and permit the service of a bill of particulars. Failure to comply with the rule invariably jeopardizes the rights of the litigant and may result in the loss of such rights. Counsel who persist in such practice may sooner or later be called upon to answer for their conduct in disciplinary proceedings. Fortunately, in this instance no serious harm appears to have resulted to the defendant. There is every indication that the Special Term gave serious consideration to the matter and we feel constrained to sustain its discretion and affirm the order. All concur except Vaughan J., who dissents and votes for reversal and denial of the motion. (Appeal from an order of Oneida. [654]*654Special Term vacating an order of preclusion and permitting plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Williams and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 653, 152 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gigliotti-v-morasco-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack