Mirabella v. Banco Industrial de la Republica Argentina

34 A.D.2d 630, 309 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5110
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 630 (Mirabella v. Banco Industrial de la Republica Argentina) 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
Mirabella v. Banco Industrial de la Republica Argentina, 34 A.D.2d 630, 309 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Order entered October 23, 1969 unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the leave granted to defendant [631]*631to serve the amended answer be granted upon condition of the payment of $1,000. to plaintiff to cover his costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with the litigation of issues arising under the added defense brought into the action at this late date; and order otherwise affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. This action was commenced in 1961 and was followed by a number of motions and appeals, including extensive disclosure proceedings here and abroad. The interposing at this time of the act of state doctrine as an affirmative defense will require some duplication of those pretrial proceedings and motions at considerable added expense to plaintiff. In the special circumstances of this case, reasonable terms should have been imposed as a condition to allowing the amendment of the answer. (See Ciunei V. Wella Gorp., 23 A D 2d 754.) The order herein shall provide for the payment of costs within 60 days after entry of the order and will further provide that before the trial of any issues in this action, the plaintiff shall have the opportunity to complete pretrial proceedings with respect to the issues arising under this newly added defense and to renew his motion to strike the defense as insufficient in law. Further, the order shall provide that the issues relative to this defense shall be tried with the defenses of release and statute of limitations, a separate trial limited to these issues having been previously directed by this court (29 A D 2d 940). Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Related

Seidler v. Knopf
2020 NY Slip Op 04799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP. v. Albany-Troy Neurosurgical Associates, P.C.
50 A.D.3d 1305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Carp v. Marcus
138 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Balzac v. Jerome
104 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
State Ex Rel. Florence-Carlton Cons
Montana Supreme Court, 1981
New Island Investors v. Insurance Company of North America
61 A.D.2d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Mt. Read Terminal, Inc. v. LeChase Construction Corp.
58 A.D.2d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.2d 630, 309 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirabella-v-banco-industrial-de-la-republica-argentina-nyappdiv-1970.