Videobox Networks v. Durst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Videobox Networks v. Durst

259 A.D.2d 429, 686 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 429 (Videobox Networks v. Durst) 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

Videobox Networks v. Durst, 259 A.D.2d 429, 686 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.H.O.), entered on or about February 10, 1998, which, in an action to recover for damages to plaintiff’s building allegedly caused by construction work to defendants’ adjacent building, denied plaintiff’s motion to adjourn the trial, “supplement” its amended bill of particulars and file additional expert witness disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[430]*430Plaintiffs eve-of-trial motion to change its theory of damages from lost rental income and cost of repair to reduced rental value was properly denied on the ground that the delay in asserting this new theory was both prejudicial and inexcusable (see, Boland v Koppelman, 251 AD2d 176; Wilson v Haagen-Dazs Co., 215 AD2d 338, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 838). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.H.O.), entered on or about February 10, 1998, which, in an action to recover for damages to plaintiff’s building allegedly caused by construction work to defendants’ adjacent building, denied plaintiff’s motion to adjourn the trial, “supplement” its amended bill of particulars and file additional expert witness disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[430]*430Plaintiffs eve-of-trial motion to change its theory of damages from lost rental income and cost of repair to reduced rental value was properly denied on the ground that the delay in asserting this new theory was both prejudicial and inexcusable (see, Boland v Koppelman, 251 AD2d 176; Wilson v Haagen-Dazs Co., 215 AD2d 338, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 838). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 429, 686 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/videobox-networks-v-durst-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack