Penepent Corp. v. Penepent

175 A.D.2d 620
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1991·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants leave to serve a second amended answer, but abused its discretion in imposing [621] sanctions, costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees as a condition (see, Menne Nursery Corp. v Rebco Steel Corp., 73 AD2d 1059). The proposed pleading will not cause plaintiffs significant prejudice or expense and was interposed within a reasonable time upon the advice of substituted counsel. The court properly denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and counterclaims. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Morton, J. — Costs.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.

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

Penepent Corp. v. Penepent, 175 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

175 A.D.2d 620 (Penepent Corp. v. Penepent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Penepent Corp. v. Penepent
175 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)