La Penta v. Remington Arms Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

La Penta v. Remington Arms Co.

10 A.D.2d 867, 199 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10708

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 867 (La Penta v. Remington Arms Co.) 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

La Penta v. Remington Arms Co., 10 A.D.2d 867, 199 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the negligent design, manufacture, assembly and sale of a device called [868]*868a “stud”, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for leave to serve an amended answer withdrawing its admission of manufacture and assembly, contained in its original answer. At the time, when the motion was made, the cause of action against any other prospective defendant would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. It also appears that more than a year before the Statute of Limitations expired, defendant had knowledge of the facts upon which the proposed amendment was based. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105; Nathan v. Long Is. Light. Co., 5 A D 2d 676; Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp., 2 A D 2d 854.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the negligent design, manufacture, assembly and sale of a device called [868]*868a “stud”, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for leave to serve an amended answer withdrawing its admission of manufacture and assembly, contained in its original answer. At the time, when the motion was made, the cause of action against any other prospective defendant would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. It also appears that more than a year before the Statute of Limitations expired, defendant had knowledge of the facts upon which the proposed amendment was based. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105; Nathan v. Long Is. Light. Co., 5 A D 2d 676; Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp., 2 A D 2d 854.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 867, 199 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-penta-v-remington-arms-co-nyappdiv-1960.