Wendring v. Louis & L. J. White Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wendring v. Louis & L. J. White Co.

255 A.D. 939, 8 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 939 (Wendring v. Louis & L. J. White Co.) 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

Wendring v. Louis & L. J. White Co., 255 A.D. 939, 8 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the facts as matter of discretion, without costs, and motion granted on condition that plaintiff pay to defendants ten dollars costs of this motion. Memorandum: Inasmuch as the memorandum of Justice Harris of April 9, 1935, and the letter of plaintiff’s attorney of July 23, 1935, were written before March 3, 1936, when the decision of the Court of Appeals in Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. (270 N. Y. 287) was made, plaintiff should be relieved of his attorney’s acceptance of Justice Harris’ memorandum (no order having been entered thereon before the date of this motion). We, therefore, exercise our discretion and grant plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in respect to the allegation of a cause of action for breach of statutory obligations. All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint in a negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the facts as matter of discretion, without costs, and motion granted on condition that plaintiff pay to defendants ten dollars costs of this motion. Memorandum: Inasmuch as the memorandum of Justice Harris of April 9, 1935, and the letter of plaintiff’s attorney of July 23, 1935, were written before March 3, 1936, when the decision of the Court of Appeals in Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co. (270 N. Y. 287) was made, plaintiff should be relieved of his attorney’s acceptance of Justice Harris’ memorandum (no order having been entered thereon before the date of this motion). We, therefore, exercise our discretion and grant plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in respect to the allegation of a cause of action for breach of statutory obligations. All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint in a negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 939, 8 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendring-v-louis-l-j-white-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack