Berman v. Szpilzinger

172 A.D.2d 304
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 304 (Berman v. Szpilzinger) 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
Berman v. Szpilzinger, 172 A.D.2d 304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered March 22, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for a default judgment on the counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the attorneys disputed whether plaintiff had served a reply to defendant’s counterclaims by mail, the issue was immaterial, as any such failure was at worst inadvertent. Where the omission to reply, if any, caused defendant no prejudice and was corrected by plaintiff upon the first mention thereof to him, the omission should be excused and the counterclaims should proceed to determination on the merits (Stevenson Corp. v Dormitory Auth., 112 AD2d 113, 118). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Photovision International, Inc. v. Thayer
235 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Ultra Scope International, Inc. v. Extebank
158 Misc. 2d 117 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-szpilzinger-nyappdiv-1991.