Sheingold v. Behrens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheingold v. Behrens

275 A.D.2d 671

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1949·Published

Opinion

The plaintiff was a social visitor and not a licensee. (Roth v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 266 App. Div. 872; Comeau V. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Restatement, Torts, §§ 331, 332.) Order denying plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a second amended complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to permit plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint alleging matters purely of evidence. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See post, pp. 686, 710, 770.]

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

The plaintiff was a social visitor and not a licensee. (Roth v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 266 App. Div. 872; Comeau V. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Restatement, Torts, §§ 331, 332.) Order denying plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a second amended complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to permit plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint alleging matters purely of evidence. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See post, pp. 686, 710, 770.]

Sheingold v. Behrens, 275 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 671 (Sheingold v. Behrens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related