Zara Contracting Co. v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zara Contracting Co. v. Long Island Lighting Co.

8 A.D.2d 821, 190 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8418

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

DecidedJune 1, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 821 (Zara Contracting Co. v. Long Island Lighting 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

Zara Contracting Co. v. Long Island Lighting Co., 8 A.D.2d 821, 190 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for an order directing respondents to accept service of a proposed amended complaint. Appellants sued to recover, inter alla, the reasonable value of work, labor and services performed and materials furnished for the protection of respondents’ facilities and equipment, while appellant was engaged in the performance of sewer work for a municipality pursuant to contract. [822]*822By orders entered May 31, 1957 appellant was directed to serve an amended complaint making more definite and certain the allegations contained in the original complaint. By stipulations appellant’s time to comply with these orders was extended to November 4, 1957. By notice of motion dated October 25, 1957, returnable November 4, 1957, appellant moved to compel respondents to accept a proposed amended complaint. That motion was adjourned and finally came on to be heard on September 23, 1958. In denying the motion the Special Term stated, among other things, that the proposed amended complaint does not comply with the orders granting permission to replead, in that it pleads different causes of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for an order directing respondents to accept service of a proposed amended complaint. Appellants sued to recover, inter alla, the reasonable value of work, labor and services performed and materials furnished for the protection of respondents’ facilities and equipment, while appellant was engaged in the performance of sewer work for a municipality pursuant to contract. [822]*822By orders entered May 31, 1957 appellant was directed to serve an amended complaint making more definite and certain the allegations contained in the original complaint. By stipulations appellant’s time to comply with these orders was extended to November 4, 1957. By notice of motion dated October 25, 1957, returnable November 4, 1957, appellant moved to compel respondents to accept a proposed amended complaint. That motion was adjourned and finally came on to be heard on September 23, 1958. In denying the motion the Special Term stated, among other things, that the proposed amended complaint does not comply with the orders granting permission to replead, in that it pleads different causes of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 821, 190 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zara-contracting-co-v-long-island-lighting-co-nyappdiv-1959.