Sears v. Hetfield
This text of 216 A.D. 767 (Sears v. Hetfield) 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.
Opinion
Order denying motion on reargument for leave to serve an-amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion [768]*768for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. The Statute of Limitations is not looked upon with disfavor, but is a beneficial statute. (Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. Y. 523; Matter of City of New York [Elm Street], 239 id. 220.) No right of the plaintiff was impaired by the delay in making the motion for leave to serve an amended answer. The discretion of the court should have been exercised in favor of the defendant. The original disposition of the motion was proper. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
216 A.D. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-v-hetfield-nyappdiv-1926.