Hirsch v. Flick
| Decision Date | 13 November 1962 |
| Citation | 17 A.D.2d 961,233 N.Y.S.2d 916 |
| Parties | Ruth HIRSCH and David Hirsch, Respondents, v. Helen FLICK and Max Flick, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry Zimmerman, Mt. Vernon, for appellants.
Edward B. Willing, Mt. Vernon, for respondents.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, KLEINFELD, HILL and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for slander and for trespass, and to obtain injunctive relief, each stated as a separate cause of action, the defendants appeal from the following two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County: (1) an order entered June 4, 1962, which denied their motion for leave to serve amended answers, pleading: (a) as a defense to each cause of action, that the defendant Helen Flick was mentally ill during the periods of time specified in the complaint; (b) as a defense to the cause of action for slander, that defendant Helen Flick was provoked by plaintiffs; and (c) as a further defense to the cause of action for slander, the bar of the one-year statute of limitations; and (2) an order entered June 5, 1962, which denied defendants' motion to remove the action from the jury calendar to the non-jury calendar for trial.
Order dated June 4, 1962, reversed on the facts, without costs, and defendants' motion for leave to serve amended answers granted, without costs, and with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, within twenty days after service of the amended answers, to move: (a) to examine defendants before trial with respect to any new matter contained in defendants' amended answers; and (b) to direct defendants to serve a verified bill of particulars with respect to such new matter. Defendants are directed to serve their amended answers within twenty days after entry of the order hereon.
Order dated June 5, 1962, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and defendants' motion to remove the action from the jury calendar to the non-jury calendar, granted, without costs; the action to be tried by the court without a jury at a trial or special term.
In our opinion, since plaintiffs failed to make any definitive showing of prejudice as a matter of law; and since the defendants seek to plead facts, which, although they were in existence at the time of the original answer, can have no different legal consequence by reason of the lapse of time, leave to amend the answers should have been granted (Sternberg v. Walsh, 273 App.Div. 972, 78 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyman v. Morone
...devoid of a showing of, or even an assertion of, prejudice that there is an absence of prejudice as a matter of law (cf. Hirsch v. Flick, 17 A.D.2d 961, 233 N.Y.S.2d 916). The amendment as to the Ad damnum clause did not change the proof with which defendant Morone was faced, the issues wer......
-
Fahey v. Ontario County
...Dept.--record shows that defendant's motion was made more than five years after service of the original answer); Hirsch v. Flick, 17 A.D.2d 961, 233 N.Y.S.2d 916 (2nd Dept.); Karp v. Antelman, 285 App.Div. 955, 138 N.Y.S.2d 298 (2nd Dept.); Manevetz v. City of New York, 283 App.Div. 1095, 1......
-
Kell v. Henderson
...long delay and the relevant facts were known from the beginning. (See 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, §§ 3025.15, 3025.16, and Hirsch v. Flick, 17 A.D.2d 961, 233 N.Y.S.2d 916.) However, where the granting of such a motion is prejudicial to the opposing party, the application should be Prior to th......
-
Carrano v. City of New York
...its default should have been granted unconditionally (Bermudez v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 865, 254 N.Y.S.2d 420; Hirsch v. Flick, 17 A.D.2d 961, 233 N.Y.S.2d 916; Karp v. Antelman, 285 App.Div. 955, 138 N.Y.S.2d 298; Sears v. Hetfield, 216 App.Div. 767, 214 N.Y.S. ...