From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 1956
2 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Opinion

October 8, 1956


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order granting respondents' motion for leave to amend their answer so as to withdraw the admission of maintenance and control. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion, resulting in prejudice to appellant, to permit respondents, in June, 1956, to amend their original answer, served in September, 1951, so as to withdraw their admission of maintenance and control. Moreover, respondents had knowledge of the claim that the third-party defendant maintained and controlled the premises in question, as shown by their third-party complaint served in October, 1952. Respondents did not move until May, 1956, on the eve of the trial, to amend their answer. This constituted gross laches. ( Drescher v. Mirkus, 211 App. Div. 763; Levy v. Delaware, Lackawanna Western R.R. Co., 211 App. Div. 503; Luback v. Hirsch, 232 App. Div. 691; Jennings v. Perkins, 277 App. Div. 1143.) Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 1956
2 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)
Case details for

Sarullo v. Newstand Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ALPHONSE SARULLO, Appellant, v. NEWSTAND REALTY CORP. et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 8, 1956

Citations

2 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Pinn v. City of Mount Vernon

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff as the result of her…

La Penta v. Remington Arms Co.

At the time, when the motion was made, the cause of action against any other prospective defendant would be…