In re Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Syracuse University

11 A.D.2d 621, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207

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

DecidedMay 5, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 621 (In re Syracuse University) 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

In re Syracuse University, 11 A.D.2d 621, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified to permit the appellants to serve an amended answer setting up a financial interest, if any, in the controversy, if so advised, within 20 days, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The appellants have not asserted a pecuniary interest in the fund and therefore the dismissal of their answer was proper. (Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor v. Carmody, 158 App. Div. 738, [622]*622affd. 211 N. Y. 286; Balluffi v. Montrose, 199 Misc. 220.) However, in the exercise of sound discretion, they should be allowed to serve an amended answer if they so desire, setting up such an interest, if any, in the controversy. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing the answer of distributees Wilson, Tarrant and Niles.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and MeClusky, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified to permit the appellants to serve an amended answer setting up a financial interest, if any, in the controversy, if so advised, within 20 days, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The appellants have not asserted a pecuniary interest in the fund and therefore the dismissal of their answer was proper. (Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor v. Carmody, 158 App. Div. 738, [622]*622affd. 211 N. Y. 286; Balluffi v. Montrose, 199 Misc. 220.) However, in the exercise of sound discretion, they should be allowed to serve an amended answer if they so desire, setting up such an interest, if any, in the controversy. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing the answer of distributees Wilson, Tarrant and Niles.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and MeClusky, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 621, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-syracuse-university-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack