From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sears v. Hetfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

March, 1926.


Order denying motion on reargument for leave to serve an amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. The Statute of Limitations is not looked upon with disfavor, but is a beneficial statute. ( Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N.Y. 523; Matter of City of New York [ Elm Street], 239 id. 220.) No right of the plaintiff was impaired by the delay in making the motion for leave to serve an amended answer. The discretion of the court should have been exercised in favor of the defendant. The original disposition of the motion was proper. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Sears v. Hetfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

Sears v. Hetfield

Case Details

Full title:MARTHA C. SEARS, Respondent, v. EMILIE J. HETFIELD and Another, as…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1926

Citations

216 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Citing Cases

Continental Bk. Tr. Co. v. Tanager Constr. Corp.

The refusal by the courts to intervene in such cases before the amendment to section 500 in 1948 was not for…

Carrano v. City of New York

It does not appear that plaintiff suffered the impairment of a right or any other prejudice in law by reason…