Anastasio v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anastasio v. Russell

187 A.D.2d 548

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 548 (Anastasio v. Russell) 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

Anastasio v. Russell, 187 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In two actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ross Greenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 14, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendant Russell Charmack, sued in Action No. 1 as Charmack A. Russell, to amend his answers to allege the affirmative defense of nonpermissive use of an automobile involved in an accident and to add cross claims against Greenberg.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendant-respondent.

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the granting of the motion would result in any prejudice to him (see, Bernstein v Spatola, 122 AD2d 97). Moreover, the admission made by the appellant, in his examination before trial, that he had "stole[n] the car” established the merit of the movant’s proposed affirmative defense of nonpermissive use (see, Garcia v Mondragon, 159 AD2d 481). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In two actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ross Greenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 14, 1990, which granted the motion of the defendant Russell Charmack, sued in Action No. 1 as Charmack A. Russell, to amend his answers to allege the affirmative defense of nonpermissive use of an automobile involved in an accident and to add cross claims against Greenberg.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendant-respondent.

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the granting of the motion would result in any prejudice to him (see, Bernstein v Spatola, 122 AD2d 97). Moreover, the admission made by the appellant, in his examination before trial, that he had "stole[n] the car” established the merit of the movant’s proposed affirmative defense of nonpermissive use (see, Garcia v Mondragon, 159 AD2d 481). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anastasio-v-russell-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack