From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haber v. Forbidussi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1959
8 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Opinion

June 1, 1959


In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from so much of an order as granted respondents' motion for reargument of their motion to vacate an order of preclusion and as, upon reargument, vacated the order of preclusion and granted respondents leave to serve a bill of particulars. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The bill of particulars which was rejected by appellant was served 12 days after the effective date of the preclusion order. In our opinion there was no showing of gross laches or inexcusable neglect, nor was there any showing of prejudice. Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Haber v. Forbidussi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1959
8 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)
Case details for

Haber v. Forbidussi

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN HABER et al., Respondents, v. LOUIS FORBIDUSSI, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1959

Citations

8 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Citing Cases

Simmons Assocs. v. Ziff-Davis Co.

That short period does not appear to me sufficient to prevent the vacating of the preclusion order. Thus, in…

Microwave/Systems, Inc. v. McLaughlin

Special Term apparently treated the matter as a default by plaintiff solely because of what it considered…