Hawthorne Steel Corp. v. Arlington Steel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawthorne Steel Corp. v. Arlington Steel Corp.

283 A.D. 1038, 131 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222

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

DecidedJune 17, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1038 (Hawthorne Steel Corp. v. Arlington Steel Corp.) 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

Hawthorne Steel Corp. v. Arlington Steel Corp., 283 A.D. 1038, 131 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion for leave to serve an amended complaint granted on condition that the plaintiff proceed to trial expeditiously and without further delay. It is proposed simply to allege the original contract with Baird made on August 22, 1950, and substitution of Runnymede as purchaser, which assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff. We regard the amendment as alleging background facts without effecting a change in the cause of action, which continues to be predicated on alleged breach of contract with Runnymede, and no other. In this view of the matter there is no new cause of action pleaded, nor will the granting of leave to serve the proposed amended complaint amount to revival of the second cause of action originally dismissed. Settle order on notice. Present — Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion for leave to serve an amended complaint granted on condition that the plaintiff proceed to trial expeditiously and without further delay. It is proposed simply to allege the original contract with Baird made on August 22, 1950, and substitution of Runnymede as purchaser, which assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff. We regard the amendment as alleging background facts without effecting a change in the cause of action, which continues to be predicated on alleged breach of contract with Runnymede, and no other. In this view of the matter there is no new cause of action pleaded, nor will the granting of leave to serve the proposed amended complaint amount to revival of the second cause of action originally dismissed. Settle order on notice. Present — Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1038, 131 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawthorne-steel-corp-v-arlington-steel-corp-nyappdiv-1954.