Levine v. Tolchin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Tolchin

238 A.D.2d 173, 655 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202

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

DecidedApril 8, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 173 (Levine v. Tolchin) 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

Levine v. Tolchin, 238 A.D.2d 173, 655 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which, inter alia, vacated certain portions of a preliminary conference order, previously consented by the parties, and permitted plaintiff to amend the bill of particulars to set forth plaintiff’s claim of pecuniary loss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances herein, the court appropriately exercised its discretion when it relieved plaintiff from the consequences of the stipulation reflected in the preliminary conference order here in issue (see, 1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 748). In particular, we note that [174]*174there was no demonstrable prejudice to defendants in allowing the amendment sought. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which, inter alia, vacated certain portions of a preliminary conference order, previously consented by the parties, and permitted plaintiff to amend the bill of particulars to set forth plaintiff’s claim of pecuniary loss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances herein, the court appropriately exercised its discretion when it relieved plaintiff from the consequences of the stipulation reflected in the preliminary conference order here in issue (see, 1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 748). In particular, we note that [174]*174there was no demonstrable prejudice to defendants in allowing the amendment sought. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 173, 655 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-tolchin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack