Steigman v. Leviathan Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steigman v. Leviathan Holding Co.

245 A.D. 839

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1935·Published

Opinion

In an action upon a contract for services, order denying defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, with ten doUars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, upon condition that the date of issue remain the same; the proposed amended answer to be served within five days from the entry of the order herein. In our opinion, the discretion of the Special Term in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer was not properly exercised. (Bendan Holding Corporations. Rodner, ante, p. 723.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, CarsweE and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a contract for services, order denying defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, with ten doUars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, upon condition that the date of issue remain the same; the proposed amended answer to be served within five days from the entry of the order herein. In our opinion, the discretion of the Special Term in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer was not properly exercised. (Bendan Holding Corporations. Rodner, ante, p. 723.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, CarsweE and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Steigman v. Leviathan Holding Co., 245 A.D. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

245 A.D. 839 (Steigman v. Leviathan Holding Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.