Ajello v. Michele Ajello Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ajello v. Michele Ajello Co.

214 A.D. 729, 210 N.Y.S. 819

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

DecidedMay 15, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D. 729 (Ajello v. Michele Ajello Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ajello v. Michele Ajello Co., 214 A.D. 729, 210 N.Y.S. 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The omission to allege pursuant to rule 255 (Rules of Civil Practice) that no other action has been brought to recover any part of the mortgage debt does not in the circumstances presented by this record fatally affect the judgment. We are agreed that such an allegation, when made, does not require proof from plaintiff in its support in the first instance. The inquiry made of counsel by the learned trial justice whether there was another action pending was replied to, in effect, in the negative. It sufficed to support the finding made to like effect and would have permitted the trial court to amend the complaint [730]*730on the trial. We think the complaint may now be amended accordingly pursuant to the power granted to this court by section 109, Civil Practice Act, and we so order. Present — Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The omission to allege pursuant to rule 255 (Rules of Civil Practice) that no other action has been brought to recover any part of the mortgage debt does not in the circumstances presented by this record fatally affect the judgment. We are agreed that such an allegation, when made, does not require proof from plaintiff in its support in the first instance. The inquiry made of counsel by the learned trial justice whether there was another action pending was replied to, in effect, in the negative. It sufficed to support the finding made to like effect and would have permitted the trial court to amend the complaint [730]*730on the trial. We think the complaint may now be amended accordingly pursuant to the power granted to this court by section 109, Civil Practice Act, and we so order. Present — Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D. 729, 210 N.Y.S. 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajello-v-michele-ajello-co-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack