Noble v. Hayakawa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noble v. Hayakawa

16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10568

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

DecidedApril 3, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.2d 616 (Noble v. Hayakawa) 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

Noble v. Hayakawa, 16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 17, 1961, granting plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and denying defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion to amend denied and the cross motion to dismiss granted, with $10 costs. In this action to recover a balance due on a note executed in 1931, the plaintiff did nothing for 20 months after the joinder of issue at which time she made the instant motion to amend the complaint by aclding a new cause of action. In the context of this ease a 20-month delay without a satisfactory explanation requires that the complaint be dismissed. In view of the disposition of the cross motion the motion to amend the complaint must be denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 17, 1961, granting plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and denying defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion to amend denied and the cross motion to dismiss granted, with $10 costs. In this action to recover a balance due on a note executed in 1931, the plaintiff did nothing for 20 months after the joinder of issue at which time she made the instant motion to amend the complaint by aclding a new cause of action. In the context of this ease a 20-month delay without a satisfactory explanation requires that the complaint be dismissed. In view of the disposition of the cross motion the motion to amend the complaint must be denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 616, 225 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-hayakawa-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack