Keenan v. Bruce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keenan v. Bruce

34 A.D.2d 648, 310 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192

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

DecidedApril 6, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 648 (Keenan v. Bruce) 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

Keenan v. Bruce, 34 A.D.2d 648, 310 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Coastal Lumber Co. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 1969, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer so as to deny the allegations in paragraphs of the complaint designated “ 2,” “ 4,” “ 5,” and “ 8 ” and to deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in paragraph designated “3”. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. Appellant shall serve its amended answer in accordance herewith within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the omission to make the denials in question was excusable. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any prejudice (Price v. Giffin, 32 A D 2d 868; Kane v. Long Is. Jewish Hosp., 29 A D 2d 554; La Bate v. Meyerbank Elec. Co., 23 A D 2d 503; Sherman v. City of New York, 29 A D 2d 775; Gilbert Props. v. City of New York 33 A D 2d 175). The remaining alleged procedural deficiencies have been examined and found to be insubstantial. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Coastal Lumber Co. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 1969, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer so as to deny the allegations in paragraphs of the complaint designated “ 2,” “ 4,” “ 5,” and “ 8 ” and to deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in paragraph designated “3”. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. Appellant shall serve its amended answer in accordance herewith within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the omission to make the denials in question was excusable. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any prejudice (Price v. Giffin, 32 A D 2d 868; Kane v. Long Is. Jewish Hosp., 29 A D 2d 554; La Bate v. Meyerbank Elec. Co., 23 A D 2d 503; Sherman v. City of New York, 29 A D 2d 775; Gilbert Props. v. City of New York 33 A D 2d 175). The remaining alleged procedural deficiencies have been examined and found to be insubstantial. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 648, 310 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-v-bruce-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack