Tomich v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomich v. Cohen

33 A.D.2d 736, 305 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 736 (Tomich v. Cohen) 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

Tomich v. Cohen, 33 A.D.2d 736, 305 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order entered April 3, 1968, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, so as to strike the last decretal paragraph and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. This belated attempt, now eight years after the accident, to serve an amended complaint containing a radically new cause of action, cannot be accepted. Laches and prejudice have long since set in. In effect, this court has already said as much. See Salama v. Cohen (28 A D 2d 650) wherein we affirmed a previous rejection by a prior Special Term of plaintiff’s effort to serve a supplemental bill of particulars embodying the alleged fact of “driver negligence.” In view of the foregoing, order appeal from, entered May 23, 1968, is now academic and of no force. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, MeGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

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

—Order entered April 3, 1968, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, so as to strike the last decretal paragraph and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. This belated attempt, now eight years after the accident, to serve an amended complaint containing a radically new cause of action, cannot be accepted. Laches and prejudice have long since set in. In effect, this court has already said as much. See Salama v. Cohen (28 A D 2d 650) wherein we affirmed a previous rejection by a prior Special Term of plaintiff’s effort to serve a supplemental bill of particulars embodying the alleged fact of “driver negligence.” In view of the foregoing, order appeal from, entered May 23, 1968, is now academic and of no force. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, MeGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 736, 305 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomich-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack