Reineke v. Lesavoy Foundation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reineke v. Lesavoy Foundation

18 A.D.2d 790, 236 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 790 (Reineke v. Lesavoy Foundation) 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

Reineke v. Lesavoy Foundation, 18 A.D.2d 790, 236 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 5, 1962, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to deny the motion unconditionally, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs, arid the motion to preclude denied, without costs. The motion was not made ’within the prescribed period of 10 days after service of the allegedly inadequate supplemental bill, and there is no showing of “special circumstances”i tending to excuse the defendants’ failure to timely move for the relief now sought. (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 115, subd. [d]; see, also, Curtis v. Curtis, 178 Misc. 213, affd. 265 App. Div. 998; Montagna v. Profeta, 17 Misc 2d 59.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ. j

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

Order, entered on June 5, 1962, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to deny the motion unconditionally, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs, arid the motion to preclude denied, without costs. The motion was not made ’within the prescribed period of 10 days after service of the allegedly inadequate supplemental bill, and there is no showing of “special circumstances”i tending to excuse the defendants’ failure to timely move for the relief now sought. (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 115, subd. [d]; see, also, Curtis v. Curtis, 178 Misc. 213, affd. 265 App. Div. 998; Montagna v. Profeta, 17 Misc 2d 59.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ. j

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 790, 236 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reineke-v-lesavoy-foundation-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack