Charlton v. General Foods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charlton v. General Foods, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 829, 384 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12643

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

DecidedMay 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 829 (Charlton v. General Foods, Inc.) 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

Charlton v. General Foods, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 829, 384 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 5, 1974, which denied the motion of defendant-appellant General Foods, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the summons to name General Foods Corporation in lieu of General Foods, Inc., in the caption thereof, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. It is obvious that the plaintiffs always intended to sue General Foods Corporation, their employer, and only inadvertently named General Foods, Inc., in the caption of the summons. The amended complaint itself makes this clear, and the actual defendant was never misled nor prejudiced by the fact that its subsidiary, General Foods, Inc., was by mistake named in the caption. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

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

Resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 5, 1974, which denied the motion of defendant-appellant General Foods, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the summons to name General Foods Corporation in lieu of General Foods, Inc., in the caption thereof, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. It is obvious that the plaintiffs always intended to sue General Foods Corporation, their employer, and only inadvertently named General Foods, Inc., in the caption of the summons. The amended complaint itself makes this clear, and the actual defendant was never misled nor prejudiced by the fact that its subsidiary, General Foods, Inc., was by mistake named in the caption. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 829, 384 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlton-v-general-foods-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack