Hayes v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Hoffman

16 A.D.2d 732, 226 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505

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

DecidedApril 5, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 732 (Hayes v. Hoffman) 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

Hayes v. Hoffman, 16 A.D.2d 732, 226 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order dismissing the second amended complaint as to certain defendants unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to the right to renew in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: See our Memorandum in Hayes v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. (16 A D 2d 732) decided herewith. We also add that this same motion had originally been denied as to these defendants. The motion which resulted in this order was not for reargument but was a completely new motion, and nothing new or additional was submitted or added. Nevertheless Special Term granted the motion which previously had been denied. This, of course, was improper. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term dismissing the second amended complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

— Order dismissing the second amended complaint as to certain defendants unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to the right to renew in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: See our Memorandum in Hayes v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. (16 A D 2d 732) decided herewith. We also add that this same motion had originally been denied as to these defendants. The motion which resulted in this order was not for reargument but was a completely new motion, and nothing new or additional was submitted or added. Nevertheless Special Term granted the motion which previously had been denied. This, of course, was improper. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term dismissing the second amended complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 732, 226 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1962.