Tannenbaum v. Forest Hills Foundation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tannenbaum v. Forest Hills Foundation, Inc.

284 A.D. 1061, 135 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 1061 (Tannenbaum v. Forest Hills Foundation, Inc.) 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

Tannenbaum v. Forest Hills Foundation, Inc., 284 A.D. 1061, 135 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from so much of an order which grants its motion for leave to discontinue its counterclaim, setoff and seventh defense contained in its amended answer as conditions the granting of the motion on defendant’s service of a bill of particulars. Order, insofar as appealed from, modified by striking from the ordering paragraph thereof everything following the word “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The motion was, in effect, for leave to amend defendant’s amended answer. It was addressed to the discretion of the court. The court had power to impose terms as a condition for the granting of the motion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105), but we are of opinion that to impose the condition that defendant serve a bill of particulars, which bill the court had previously ordered it to serve, and which bill would have to include particulars of the portion of the pleading which is to be elided, was an improvident exercise of discretion. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from so much of an order which grants its motion for leave to discontinue its counterclaim, setoff and seventh defense contained in its amended answer as conditions the granting of the motion on defendant’s service of a bill of particulars. Order, insofar as appealed from, modified by striking from the ordering paragraph thereof everything following the word “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The motion was, in effect, for leave to amend defendant’s amended answer. It was addressed to the discretion of the court. The court had power to impose terms as a condition for the granting of the motion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105), but we are of opinion that to impose the condition that defendant serve a bill of particulars, which bill the court had previously ordered it to serve, and which bill would have to include particulars of the portion of the pleading which is to be elided, was an improvident exercise of discretion. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 1061, 135 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tannenbaum-v-forest-hills-foundation-inc-nyappdiv-1954.