Legal Opinion

Sears v. Hetfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 15, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 *768for 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…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Van Keuren v. . ParmeleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1849

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carrano v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
  2. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Tanager Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API