Infusino v. Maggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Infusino v. Maggio

24 A.D.2d 536, 261 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855

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

DecidedJune 23, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 536 (Infusino v. Maggio) 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

Infusino v. Maggio, 24 A.D.2d 536, 261 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment entered thereon, unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied, with $10 costs, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein. Memorandum: Issues of fact are presented that require a trial. Moreover, technical defects in the pleading of an adversary are not available to a plaintiff upon an application for summary judgment. (Curry v. MacKenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Werfel v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N. Y. 91, 93.) Lastly, in the exercise of a [537]*537proper discretion, Special Term, inasmuch as it was permitting plaintiff to substantially amend his complaint, should have granted leave to defendant to serve an amended answer thereto. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Order and judgment entered thereon, unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied, with $10 costs, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein. Memorandum: Issues of fact are presented that require a trial. Moreover, technical defects in the pleading of an adversary are not available to a plaintiff upon an application for summary judgment. (Curry v. MacKenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Werfel v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N. Y. 91, 93.) Lastly, in the exercise of a [537]*537proper discretion, Special Term, inasmuch as it was permitting plaintiff to substantially amend his complaint, should have granted leave to defendant to serve an amended answer thereto. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 536, 261 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/infusino-v-maggio-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack