Swanson v. Dohanish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swanson v. Dohanish

18 A.D.2d 1094, 239 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3934

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

DecidedApril 15, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1094 (Swanson v. Dohanish) 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

Swanson v. Dohanish, 18 A.D.2d 1094, 239 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury as a result of a collision between two motor vehicles, defendant Dohanish appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 4, 1961, which granted plaintiff’s motion: (a) for leave to discontinue the action against the eodefendant Schultz, and (b) for leave to serve an amended complaint against defendant Dohanish. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The time of the defendant Dohanish to serve his answer to the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to permit a discontinuance of the action against the codefendant Schultz, the operator of plaintiff’s automobile in which she was a passenger, and which was in collision with the automobile of the defendant Dohanish. The discontinuance did not prejudice any substantial right of said defendant. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury as a result of a collision between two motor vehicles, defendant Dohanish appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 4, 1961, which granted plaintiff’s motion: (a) for leave to discontinue the action against the eodefendant Schultz, and (b) for leave to serve an amended complaint against defendant Dohanish. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The time of the defendant Dohanish to serve his answer to the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to permit a discontinuance of the action against the codefendant Schultz, the operator of plaintiff’s automobile in which she was a passenger, and which was in collision with the automobile of the defendant Dohanish. The discontinuance did not prejudice any substantial right of said defendant. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1094, 239 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swanson-v-dohanish-nyappdiv-1963.