Anamdi v. Anugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anamdi v. Anugo

238 A.D.2d 366, 657 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3867

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

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 366 (Anamdi v. Anugo) 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

Anamdi v. Anugo, 238 A.D.2d 366, 657 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated September 16, 1996, as denied his motion to strike the answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer on the ground that the defendant had asserted inconsistent defenses (see, CPLR 3014; Collins v Caldor of Kingston, 73 AD2d 708, 709; George v Sparwood Realty Corp., 34 AD2d 768).

Furthermore, we reject the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s answer to the amended verified complaint was untimely interposed, since the plaintiff failed to establish that he properly served the defendant with the order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his verified complaint (see, Everything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 AD2d 604; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), dated September 16, 1996, as denied his motion to strike the answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer on the ground that the defendant had asserted inconsistent defenses (see, CPLR 3014; Collins v Caldor of Kingston, 73 AD2d 708, 709; George v Sparwood Realty Corp., 34 AD2d 768).

Furthermore, we reject the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s answer to the amended verified complaint was untimely interposed, since the plaintiff failed to establish that he properly served the defendant with the order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his verified complaint (see, Everything Yogurt v Toscano, 232 AD2d 604; Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 366, 657 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anamdi-v-anugo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack