Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp.

12 A.D.2d 639, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 639 (Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp.) 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
Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for conversion, defendant Stoll Packing Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 3, 1959, denying its motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its previously amended [640]*640complaint. Order modified by striking out its second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs relating to the cross motion, and by substituting therefor a paragraph denying plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint, without prejudice to the renewal of such motion upon proper papers. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The papers in support of the motion to amend the complaint are insufficient, in that they do not contain a copy of the proposed amended complaint in full (Hoisting Mach. Co. v. Elderfields Reservation, 195 App. Div. 893; Plitt v. Illinois Sur. Co., 165 App. Div. 973). Furthermore, the order in effect directs that the proposed amendment be deemed effectuated, without provision for service of a copy of the complaint as thus amended. Such procedure is not permissible. It engenders a question of whether it was intended that an answer to the new pleading was to be served or not, and a defendant should not be deprived of a right to answer a new pleading (Kelly v. Hilbert, 200 App. Div. 489). As to the motion for summary judgment, the record presents triable issues of fact. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., not voting.

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

Related

August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Loehner v. Simons
224 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Friendship, Inc. v. Wu
166 Misc. 2d 352 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)
Branch v. Abraham & Strauss Department Store
220 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Walsam Fifth Avenue Development Co. v. Lions Gate Capital Corp.
163 Misc. 2d 1071 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)
Bank of New York v. Irwin International Imports, Inc.
197 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Rodriguez v. State
153 Misc. 2d 363 (New York State Court of Claims, 1992)
Baer v. Jarzombek
153 Misc. 2d 351 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1992)
Katzeff v. Cohn
139 Misc. 2d 1076 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Bridges v. 725 Riverside Drive, Inc.
119 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Barry v. Niagara Frontier Transit System, Inc.
38 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Rice v. Spencer
43 Misc. 2d 331 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.2d 639, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldner-trucking-corp-v-stoll-packing-corp-nyappdiv-1960.