Austin v. Saccacio

1 A.D.2d 1028, 152 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 1956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for waste, the appeal is from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, as grants a motion for leave to serve an “ amended and supplemented ” complaint. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While there is no authority for an “ amended and supplemented” complaint (cf. Horowitz v. Goodman, 112 App. Div. 13; Homer v. Homer, 282 App. Div. 699), the irregularity may be disregarded under section 105 of the Civil Practice Act, appellants not having been prejudiced thereby. On the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion by the Special Term in permitting an amendment of the pleading. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Austin v. Saccacio, 1 A.D.2d 1028, 152 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

1 A.D.2d 1028 (Austin v. Saccacio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MATTER OF GRIDLEY BLDG., INC. v. Gingold
183 N.E.2d 909 (New York Court of Appeals, 1962)