Messing v. Pins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Messing v. Pins

15 A.D.2d 644, 223 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11864

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 644 (Messing v. Pins) 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

Messing v. Pins, 15 A.D.2d 644, 223 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants’ application, pursuant to sections 245 and 245-a of the Civil Practice Act, was made in April, 1961. However, plaintiffs’ action had theretofore been settled — when the case appeared on the Trial Calendar in October, 1960 — by a stipulation requiring defendants to pay $54,300 in installments. In fact, defendants had already paid on the settlement two installments which became due in October and December, 1960, respectively. Although — in view of the terms of the stipulation of settlement — the action technically may have been still pending (see Thompson Med. Co. v. Benjamin Pharmaceuticals, 4 A D 2d 504; Karpinski v. Karpinski, 130 N. Y. S. 2d 364), and, therefore, power resided in the court to pass on the application to serve the supplemental pleading, it was an improvi[645]*645dent exercise of discretion, under the circumstances of this ease, to have granted the motion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Tálente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Defendants’ application, pursuant to sections 245 and 245-a of the Civil Practice Act, was made in April, 1961. However, plaintiffs’ action had theretofore been settled — when the case appeared on the Trial Calendar in October, 1960 — by a stipulation requiring defendants to pay $54,300 in installments. In fact, defendants had already paid on the settlement two installments which became due in October and December, 1960, respectively. Although — in view of the terms of the stipulation of settlement — the action technically may have been still pending (see Thompson Med. Co. v. Benjamin Pharmaceuticals, 4 A D 2d 504; Karpinski v. Karpinski, 130 N. Y. S. 2d 364), and, therefore, power resided in the court to pass on the application to serve the supplemental pleading, it was an improvi[645]*645dent exercise of discretion, under the circumstances of this ease, to have granted the motion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Tálente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 644, 223 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messing-v-pins-nyappdiv-1962.