Legal Opinion

Lazarus v. Rice

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

Decided December 22, 1944PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint the sufficiency of the proposed pleading will not ordinarily be inquired into. (Holgan Bros., Inc., v. Beekman Hospital, 267 App. Div. 815, 816.) It cannot be said on the present record that plaintiff was guilty of loches as a matter of law. Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and 'the motion granted. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Glennon and Cohn, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice. [See 269 App. Div. 684.]

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Holgan Bros. v. Beekman HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1949
  2. City of New York v. Washington CemeteryNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Station Associates, Inc. v. Long Island Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Amherst Bowling Center, Inc. v. DolceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
  5. Kamen v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1962

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API