Kamp v. Syracuse Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamp v. Syracuse Transit Corp.

284 A.D. 1028, 134 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4427

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D. 1028 (Kamp v. Syracuse Transit 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

Kamp v. Syracuse Transit Corp., 284 A.D. 1028, 134 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Under the circumstances here presented, we think the Special Term was well within the boundaries of its discretion in modifying the preclusion orders previously made. We are aware of the lax practice of many attorneys in failing to comply with the provisions of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. We do not condone this practice. The rule is a beneficial one to promote expedition in the disposition of litigated matters, and bills of particulars should be served within the time limited by that rule. On the other hand, we should not, as a matter of course by a preclusion order, in effect dismiss a complaint and thus penalize a litigant for the failure of his attorney to comply with the rule. It is the duty of an attorney to comply with the rules for the protection [1029]*1029of his client. Failure to do so subjects him to liability to his client if the latter is damaged. All concur. (Appeals from an order modifying preclusion orders.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See 285 App. Div. 859.]

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

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Under the circumstances here presented, we think the Special Term was well within the boundaries of its discretion in modifying the preclusion orders previously made. We are aware of the lax practice of many attorneys in failing to comply with the provisions of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. We do not condone this practice. The rule is a beneficial one to promote expedition in the disposition of litigated matters, and bills of particulars should be served within the time limited by that rule. On the other hand, we should not, as a matter of course by a preclusion order, in effect dismiss a complaint and thus penalize a litigant for the failure of his attorney to comply with the rule. It is the duty of an attorney to comply with the rules for the protection [1029]*1029of his client. Failure to do so subjects him to liability to his client if the latter is damaged. All concur. (Appeals from an order modifying preclusion orders.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See 285 App. Div. 859.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 1028, 134 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamp-v-syracuse-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack