Austin v. Saccacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Saccacio

1 A.D.2d 1028, 152 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287

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

DecidedMay 21, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1028 (Austin v. Saccacio) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1028, 152 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-saccacio-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack