Gonsa v. Licitra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonsa v. Licitra

6 A.D.2d 755, 174 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910

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

DecidedMay 14, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 755 (Gonsa v. Licitra) 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

Gonsa v. Licitra, 6 A.D.2d 755, 174 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: We have on several occasions made it clear that orders of preclusion for failure to serve bills of particulars in negligence actions may not be disregarded with impunity. In the absence of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, which are not established by the affidavits in this case, we consider it an abuse of discretion to grant relief from a preclusion order. (Goldstein v. Wickett, 3 A D 2d 135; O’Connell v. Korb, 3 A D 2d 978; Schulz v. Sun Oil Co., 4 A D 2d 44; Walker v. Ferri, 5 A D 2d 24.) All concur. (Appeal from an order of Onondaga Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to open her default in complying with an order of preclusion, and modifying the order by permitting her to serve a bill of particulars.) Present — Kimball, J. P., Williams, Bastow, Goldman and Halpern, JJ.

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

Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: We have on several occasions made it clear that orders of preclusion for failure to serve bills of particulars in negligence actions may not be disregarded with impunity. In the absence of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, which are not established by the affidavits in this case, we consider it an abuse of discretion to grant relief from a preclusion order. (Goldstein v. Wickett, 3 A D 2d 135; O’Connell v. Korb, 3 A D 2d 978; Schulz v. Sun Oil Co., 4 A D 2d 44; Walker v. Ferri, 5 A D 2d 24.) All concur. (Appeal from an order of Onondaga Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to open her default in complying with an order of preclusion, and modifying the order by permitting her to serve a bill of particulars.) Present — Kimball, J. P., Williams, Bastow, Goldman and Halpern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 755, 174 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonsa-v-licitra-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack