Haber v. Forbidussi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haber v. Forbidussi

8 A.D.2d 820, 190 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8409

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

DecidedJune 1, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.2d 820 (Haber v. Forbidussi) 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

Haber v. Forbidussi, 8 A.D.2d 820, 190 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order as granted respondents’ motion for reargument of their motion to vacate an order of preclusion and as, upon reargument, vacated the order of preclusion and granted respondents leave to serve a bill of particulars. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The bill of particulars which was rejected by appellant was served 12 days after the effective date of the preclusion order. In our opinion there was no showing of gross loches or inexcusable neglect, nor was there any showing of prejudice. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order as granted respondents’ motion for reargument of their motion to vacate an order of preclusion and as, upon reargument, vacated the order of preclusion and granted respondents leave to serve a bill of particulars. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The bill of particulars which was rejected by appellant was served 12 days after the effective date of the preclusion order. In our opinion there was no showing of gross loches or inexcusable neglect, nor was there any showing of prejudice. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 820, 190 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haber-v-forbidussi-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack