Infusino v. Maggio

24 A.D.2d 536, 261 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1965·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

24 A.D.2d 536 (Infusino v. Maggio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Pyramid Champlain Co.
193 A.D.2d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Cristiano v. Illinois National Insurance
110 A.D.2d 1068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)