Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co.

5 A.D.2d 676, 168 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 1957·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] permit 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

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).

5 A.D.2d 676 (Nathan v. Long Island Lighting Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kennedy v. Calta
70 A.D.2d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)