From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1966
25 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Summary

In Chimenti, the Appellate Division had previously granted a new trial and thereafter the Supreme Court had granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Summary of this case from DeRijdt v. Straile Co.

Opinion

February 28, 1966


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, in which this court previously granted a new trial ( Chimenti v. Hertz Corp., 23 A.D.2d 495), the defendants (purportedly including defendant Frey) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 15, 1965, which granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and an amended bill of particulars. Appeal, insofar as it purports to be by defendant Frey dismissed, without costs. Order, insofar as it affects the remaining appellants, affirmed, without costs. The proposed amended complaint and the proposed amended bill of particulars printed in the record on appeal shall be deemed to have been served and the time to answer is extended until 10 days after entry of the order hereon. It appears that after the first trial but prior to the making of the motion presently under review, the defendant Frey died. There has been no substitution for him by a representative of his estate. Hence the notice of appeal, insofar as it purports to be by him, is void and cannot bring the appeal before this court ( Speier v. St. Francis Church, 3 A.D.2d 732; Matter of Huberman v. O'Connell, 282 App. Div. 762, 770). It should be noted that the Special Term likewise lacked jurisdiction to pass on the motion as to him (cf. CPLR 5016, subd. [d]). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., concurs in dismissal of the appeal insofar as it purports to be by defendant Frey; but, as to the other defendants, dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny plaintiff's motion, with the following memorandum: The plaintiff has been guilty of gross laches in raising the statutory cause of action; and defendants quite obviously have been prejudiced by the death of the only person with knowledge of the facts.


Summaries of

Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1966
25 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

In Chimenti, the Appellate Division had previously granted a new trial and thereafter the Supreme Court had granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Summary of this case from DeRijdt v. Straile Co.
Case details for

Chimenti v. Hertz Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH M. CHIMENTI, Respondent, v. HERTZ CORPORATION et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1966

Citations

25 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)

Citing Cases

Wisdom v. Wisdom

It has been held that in ruling there is no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, it is appropriate to…

Warren v. Cole

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 21, 1966, which denied a motion…