Huss v. Huss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huss v. Huss

19 A.D.2d 870, 245 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2900

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 870 (Huss v. Huss) 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

Huss v. Huss, 19 A.D.2d 870, 245 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 8,1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs and the cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer denied. The proposed amended answer pleads substantially the same allegations as are contained in the complaint in the action disposed of by Huss v. Huss (19 A D 2d 869). In the light of the conclusion there reached the defendant should not be permitted to amend. Likewise, in view of our decision Huss v. Huss (19 A D 2d 869), there remains no triable issue in this action and the plaintiff wife is entitled to the relief prayed for in her complaint. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered on August 8,1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs and the cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer denied. The proposed amended answer pleads substantially the same allegations as are contained in the complaint in the action disposed of by Huss v. Huss (19 A D 2d 869). In the light of the conclusion there reached the defendant should not be permitted to amend. Likewise, in view of our decision Huss v. Huss (19 A D 2d 869), there remains no triable issue in this action and the plaintiff wife is entitled to the relief prayed for in her complaint. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 870, 245 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huss-v-huss-nyappdiv-1963.