L. B. Foster Co. v. Terry Contracting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

L. B. Foster Co. v. Terry Contracting, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 721, 268 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4554

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

DecidedApril 5, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 721 (L. B. Foster Co. v. Terry Contracting, Inc.) 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

L. B. Foster Co. v. Terry Contracting, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 721, 268 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders entered December 7 and December 27, 1965 granting the moving defendants’ motion for leave to serve an answer containing a counterclaim to the cross answer and counterclaim of the defendant Tufano Contracting Corp., unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exereise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellants. Three years have gone by since the joinder of issue, and this is the first time the moving defendants have made application for the relief sought. With the exception of the exact amount of damages sustained, or to be sustained, the facts pleaded in the answer were'known to the moving defendants since the institution of this action. There was no need to wait until the exact amount of damages was ascertained before asserting the proposed counterclaim. If [722]*722we were to allow the respondents now to interpose a counterclaim, and if we are to give the defendant Tufano a reasonable time to prepare its defense, the trial, of necessity, must be delayed. In view of the inordinate delay of respondents in making this application and the resultant prejudice to the defendant Tufano if the application were granted, there is no justification for allowing the answer and counterclaim at this late date — on the eve of trial. (See O'Hara v. Tidewater Oil Co., 23 A D 2d 870.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Orders entered December 7 and December 27, 1965 granting the moving defendants’ motion for leave to serve an answer containing a counterclaim to the cross answer and counterclaim of the defendant Tufano Contracting Corp., unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exereise of discretion, and the motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellants. Three years have gone by since the joinder of issue, and this is the first time the moving defendants have made application for the relief sought. With the exception of the exact amount of damages sustained, or to be sustained, the facts pleaded in the answer were'known to the moving defendants since the institution of this action. There was no need to wait until the exact amount of damages was ascertained before asserting the proposed counterclaim. If [722]*722we were to allow the respondents now to interpose a counterclaim, and if we are to give the defendant Tufano a reasonable time to prepare its defense, the trial, of necessity, must be delayed. In view of the inordinate delay of respondents in making this application and the resultant prejudice to the defendant Tufano if the application were granted, there is no justification for allowing the answer and counterclaim at this late date — on the eve of trial. (See O'Hara v. Tidewater Oil Co., 23 A D 2d 870.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 721, 268 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-b-foster-co-v-terry-contracting-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack