Midtown Veal & Mutton Co. v. Mensch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midtown Veal & Mutton Co. v. Mensch

12 A.D.2d 495, 206 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 495 (Midtown Veal & Mutton Co. v. Mensch) 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

Midtown Veal & Mutton Co. v. Mensch, 12 A.D.2d 495, 206 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the agreed price and reasonable value of goods sold and delivered, and for other relief, defendants, other than defendant Getzov, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion to preclude them from offering any proof to sustain the allegations of their affirmative defense that plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, was not authorized to do business in this State. A bill of particulars was submitted by said defendants on the return day of the motion. The delay in serving the bill covered a period of approximately five months. Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to preclude denied. In our opinion, in view of all the facts and circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, 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 the agreed price and reasonable value of goods sold and delivered, and for other relief, defendants, other than defendant Getzov, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion to preclude them from offering any proof to sustain the allegations of their affirmative defense that plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, was not authorized to do business in this State. A bill of particulars was submitted by said defendants on the return day of the motion. The delay in serving the bill covered a period of approximately five months. Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to preclude denied. In our opinion, in view of all the facts and circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 495, 206 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midtown-veal-mutton-co-v-mensch-nyappdiv-1960.