Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co.

5 A.D.2d 676, 168 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 676 (Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co.) 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

Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co., 5 A.D.2d 676, 168 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from an order granting respondent’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer so as to withdraw an admission that respondent created a sidewalk opening in a parking area, which caused appellant Aileen Nathan to fall. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exereise of discretion, resulting in prejudice to appellants, to [677]*677permit the amendment, in March, 1956, of the original answer, served in May, 1953, so as to withdraw the admission of the creation of the opening. Moreover, it appears that respondent had knowledge of the inaccuracy of its admission in October, 1954, and did not move to amend until February, 1956. This constituted gross laches (Drescher v. Mirkus, 211 App. Div. 763; Luback v. Hirsch, 232 App. Div. 691; Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp., 2 A D 2d 854; Stafford v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 242 App. Div. 667; Hernstat v. Sab Holding Corp., 243 App. Div. 808).

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., eoneur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from an order granting respondent’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer so as to withdraw an admission that respondent created a sidewalk opening in a parking area, which caused appellant Aileen Nathan to fall. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exereise of discretion, resulting in prejudice to appellants, to [677]*677permit the amendment, in March, 1956, of the original answer, served in May, 1953, so as to withdraw the admission of the creation of the opening. Moreover, it appears that respondent had knowledge of the inaccuracy of its admission in October, 1954, and did not move to amend until February, 1956. This constituted gross laches (Drescher v. Mirkus, 211 App. Div. 763; Luback v. Hirsch, 232 App. Div. 691; Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp., 2 A D 2d 854; Stafford v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 242 App. Div. 667; Hernstat v. Sab Holding Corp., 243 App. Div. 808).

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 676, 168 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-v-long-island-lighting-co-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack