W. T. Grant Co. v. Reed & Topper, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W. T. Grant Co. v. Reed & Topper, Inc.

49 A.D.2d 855

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 855 (W. T. Grant Co. v. Reed & Topper, 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

W. T. Grant Co. v. Reed & Topper, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 19, 1974, denying defendant’s application for leave to serve an amended answer which would delete an admission made in its answer served in July, 1967, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. This action, which arose out of an incident which occurred in April, 1965, was commenced in April, 1967 and issue was joined in July, 1967. Plaintiff has demonstrated that it would clearly be prejudiced by the amendment sought to be made, which amendment could easily have been attempted many years earlier. At this late date neither the records of the defendant, (which apparently went out of business before this action was commenced), nor those of the Interstate Commerce Commission are any longer available. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 19, 1974, denying defendant’s application for leave to serve an amended answer which would delete an admission made in its answer served in July, 1967, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. This action, which arose out of an incident which occurred in April, 1965, was commenced in April, 1967 and issue was joined in July, 1967. Plaintiff has demonstrated that it would clearly be prejudiced by the amendment sought to be made, which amendment could easily have been attempted many years earlier. At this late date neither the records of the defendant, (which apparently went out of business before this action was commenced), nor those of the Interstate Commerce Commission are any longer available. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-grant-co-v-reed-topper-inc-nyappdiv-1975.