Dziezynski v. Carucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dziezynski v. Carucci

224 A.D.2d 965, 638 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1610

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 965 (Dziezynski v. Carucci) 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

Dziezynski v. Carucci, 224 A.D.2d 965, 638 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order that granted the motion of defendants to amend their answer to assert an affirmative defense of limited liability pursuant to CPLR 1601 (1) and denied the cross motion of plaintiffs to try their negligence action separately from defendants’ third-party action. At oral argument, the parties informed this Court that the case had since been tried with a substantial verdict for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs withdrew those portions of their brief contesting the propriety of trying the main [966]*966action with the third-party action and the application of CPLR 1601 (1) with respect to defendants and third-party defendant. We conclude that the order allowing amendment of the answer with regard to the parties in the main action and the third-party action was within Supreme Court’s broad discretion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Amend Answer.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order that granted the motion of defendants to amend their answer to assert an affirmative defense of limited liability pursuant to CPLR 1601 (1) and denied the cross motion of plaintiffs to try their negligence action separately from defendants’ third-party action. At oral argument, the parties informed this Court that the case had since been tried with a substantial verdict for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs withdrew those portions of their brief contesting the propriety of trying the main [966]*966action with the third-party action and the application of CPLR 1601 (1) with respect to defendants and third-party defendant. We conclude that the order allowing amendment of the answer with regard to the parties in the main action and the third-party action was within Supreme Court’s broad discretion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Amend Answer.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 965, 638 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dziezynski-v-carucci-nyappdiv-1996.