From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maglieri v. Saks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 1970
33 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

January 20, 1970


Order, entered August 21, 1969, granting plaintiff's motion to vacate a preclusion order and permitting service of a bill of particulars, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of conditioning the vacatur of the preclusion order upon the payment of $100 in costs by plaintiff, within 20 days from the date of entry of the order herein, and otherwise the order is affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. Under the circumstances, plaintiff's service of a bill of particulars after the time fixed by the conditional order of preclusion was adequately explained, and in the absence of any proof of prejudice, plaintiff was entitled to be relieved of the effects of a preclusion. Nevertheless, the delay in complying with the conditional order of preclusion should not have been completely ignored and conditions should have been imposed to the granting of relief. Accordingly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, plaintiff should have been allowed to serve her bill of particulars upon the condition above stated.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli, Markewich and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Maglieri v. Saks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 1970
33 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Maglieri v. Saks

Case Details

Full title:GRACE MAGLIERI, Respondent, v. SIDNEY W. SAKS, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 20, 1970

Citations

33 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Seven Acre Wood Street Associates, Inc. v. Petruccelli Engineering

Inasmuch as plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for its default in…

Morris Oil Services, Inc. v. Bergman

In our opinion, since defendant's default in opposing plaintiff's motion to preclude can be attributed to her…