Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.

2 A.D.2d 854, 155 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.2d 854 (Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.) 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

Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp., 2 A.D.2d 854, 155 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order granting respondents’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to withdraw the admission of maintenance and control. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion, resulting in prejudice to appellant, to permit respondents, in June, 1956, to amend their original answer, served in September, 1961, so as to withdraw their admission of maintenance and control. Moreover, respondents had knowledge of the claim that the third-party defendant maintained and controlled the premises in question, as shown by their third-party complaint served in October, 1952. Respondents did not move until May, 1956, on the eve of the trial, to amend their answer. This constituted gross laches. (Drescher v. Mirkus, 211 App. Div. 763; Levy v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 211 App. Div. 503; Luback v. Hirsch, 232 App. Div. 691; Jennings v. Perkins, 277 App. Div. 1143.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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, the appeal is from an order granting respondents’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to withdraw the admission of maintenance and control. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion, resulting in prejudice to appellant, to permit respondents, in June, 1956, to amend their original answer, served in September, 1961, so as to withdraw their admission of maintenance and control. Moreover, respondents had knowledge of the claim that the third-party defendant maintained and controlled the premises in question, as shown by their third-party complaint served in October, 1952. Respondents did not move until May, 1956, on the eve of the trial, to amend their answer. This constituted gross laches. (Drescher v. Mirkus, 211 App. Div. 763; Levy v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 211 App. Div. 503; Luback v. Hirsch, 232 App. Div. 691; Jennings v. Perkins, 277 App. Div. 1143.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 854, 155 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarullo-v-newstand-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack