Josef v. Princess Ileana of Romania

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Josef v. Princess Ileana of Romania

282 A.D. 1034, 126 N.Y.S.2d 321

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1034 (Josef v. Princess Ileana of Romania) 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

Josef v. Princess Ileana of Romania, 282 A.D. 1034, 126 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 17,1953, in New York County, which granted a motion by defendant-respondent for an order permitting her to serve a second amended answer.

Memorandum by the Court. ' The proposed second amended answer is not only at variance with admissions made by defendant in prior pleadings with respect to ownership of the property in issue in this suit, but it is at variance with the position taken throughout this litigation to date that in dealing with the property she was acting equally for plaintiff and his brother, her husband. The belated fundamental change in position now attempted would be very prejudicial to plaintiff and should not be allowed. Furthermore, the suggested basis for it in newly discovered evidence is hardly evidence and under the circumstances cannot be regarded as newly discovered.

Order reversed and motion denied.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 17,1953, in New York County, which granted a motion by defendant-respondent for an order permitting her to serve a second amended answer.

Memorandum by the Court. ' The proposed second amended answer is not only at variance with admissions made by defendant in prior pleadings with respect to ownership of the property in issue in this suit, but it is at variance with the position taken throughout this litigation to date that in dealing with the property she was acting equally for plaintiff and his brother, her husband. The belated fundamental change in position now attempted would be very prejudicial to plaintiff and should not be allowed. Furthermore, the suggested basis for it in newly discovered evidence is hardly evidence and under the circumstances cannot be regarded as newly discovered.

Order reversed and motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1034, 126 N.Y.S.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josef-v-princess-ileana-of-romania-nyappdiv-1953.