Glendale Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. Seidman & Seidman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glendale Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. Seidman & Seidman

89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17608

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 555 (Glendale Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. Seidman & Seidman) 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

Glendale Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. Seidman & Seidman, 89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages against the defendant accounting firm, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated February 10, 1981, which, upon defendant’s motion to amend a prior order of the same court, dated September 22,1980, amended the fifth decretal paragraph of said order. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, the motion to amend is denied and the original fifth decretal paragraph is reinstated. The conduct of plaintiff and its attorneys in preparing this case for trial has been far less than satisfactory, as defendant’s counsel has gone to considerable effort to demonstrate. The record does not support a finding, however, that plaintiff has engaged in a deliberate effort to defeat defendant’s right to full disclosure. Plaintiff should not, therefore, be precluded to the extent of being denied the ability to make out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we deny the motion to amend. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Laser and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages against the defendant accounting firm, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated February 10, 1981, which, upon defendant’s motion to amend a prior order of the same court, dated September 22,1980, amended the fifth decretal paragraph of said order. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, the motion to amend is denied and the original fifth decretal paragraph is reinstated. The conduct of plaintiff and its attorneys in preparing this case for trial has been far less than satisfactory, as defendant’s counsel has gone to considerable effort to demonstrate. The record does not support a finding, however, that plaintiff has engaged in a deliberate effort to defeat defendant’s right to full disclosure. Plaintiff should not, therefore, be precluded to the extent of being denied the ability to make out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we deny the motion to amend. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Laser and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 555, 452 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glendale-fire-sprinkler-corp-v-seidman-seidman-nyappdiv-1982.