Miess v. Walkowiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miess v. Walkowiak

27 A.D.2d 797, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 797 (Miess v. Walkowiak) 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

Miess v. Walkowiak, 27 A.D.2d 797, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: There is insufficient support in the record for the order made three years after the accident and 18 months after plaintiff’s original bill had been served. “A motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars must be supported by an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts ” (6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 36:67; Montondo v. Petty, 21 A D 2d 975). The hearsay affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney and the minutes of her examination before trial fail to show that the new particulars were unknown when the original bill was served and show no facts excusing her delay in seeking the relief. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended bill of particulars.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: There is insufficient support in the record for the order made three years after the accident and 18 months after plaintiff’s original bill had been served. “A motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars must be supported by an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts ” (6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 36:67; Montondo v. Petty, 21 A D 2d 975). The hearsay affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney and the minutes of her examination before trial fail to show that the new particulars were unknown when the original bill was served and show no facts excusing her delay in seeking the relief. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended bill of particulars.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 797, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miess-v-walkowiak-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack