Lippiner v. Siris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lippiner v. Siris

31 A.D.2d 749, 298 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 749 (Lippiner v. Siris) 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

Lippiner v. Siris, 31 A.D.2d 749, 298 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 19, 1968, as, on reargument, denied their motion for leave to amend their complaint and bill of particulars. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and said motion granted. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and amended bill of particulars shall be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. On this record it is our opinion that the denial of leave to amend was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 19, 1968, as, on reargument, denied their motion for leave to amend their complaint and bill of particulars. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and said motion granted. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and amended bill of particulars shall be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. On this record it is our opinion that the denial of leave to amend was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 749, 298 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippiner-v-siris-nyappdiv-1969.