Henry v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry v. Henry

27 A.D.2d 514, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 514 (Henry v. Henry) 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

Henry v. Henry, 27 A.D.2d 514, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 15, 1966, denying motion for leave to serve an amended answer unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, and motion granted upon the following terms: that defendant pay $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal and costs of the action to date, payment to be made five days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry; that defendant waive all pretrial procedures in regard to the amended answer; and that plaintiff have 30 days in which to pursue such pretrial procedures as [515]*515she may elect, and to adjourn the trial not to exceed a like period, at her election. The application here was made unusually late but should nevertheless be entertained (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]). Despite the fact that defendant may have brought a separate action to enforce the counterclaims, no useful purpose would be served in splitting the difficulties of this couple into two separate actions. The terms imposed should avert any inconvenience to plaintiff arising from the tardiness of the application (Gonzalez v. Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 27 A D 2d 516). Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 15, 1966, denying motion for leave to serve an amended answer unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, and motion granted upon the following terms: that defendant pay $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal and costs of the action to date, payment to be made five days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry; that defendant waive all pretrial procedures in regard to the amended answer; and that plaintiff have 30 days in which to pursue such pretrial procedures as [515]*515she may elect, and to adjourn the trial not to exceed a like period, at her election. The application here was made unusually late but should nevertheless be entertained (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]). Despite the fact that defendant may have brought a separate action to enforce the counterclaims, no useful purpose would be served in splitting the difficulties of this couple into two separate actions. The terms imposed should avert any inconvenience to plaintiff arising from the tardiness of the application (Gonzalez v. Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 27 A D 2d 516). Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 514, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-henry-nyappdiv-1966.