Londono v. Altenkirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Londono v. Altenkirsch

261 A.D.2d 589, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5689

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 24, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated April 30, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the plaintiff (see, CPLR 305 [c]; 2001; First Wis. Trust Co. v Hakimian, 237 AD2d 250; Homemakers, Inc. v Williams, 100 AD2d 505; Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80; A.A. Sutain Ltd. v Montgomery Ward & Co., 22 AD2d 607, affd 17 NY2d 776).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated April 30, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the plaintiff (see, CPLR 305 [c]; 2001; First Wis. Trust Co. v Hakimian, 237 AD2d 250; Homemakers, Inc. v Williams, 100 AD2d 505; Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80; A.A. Sutain Ltd. v Montgomery Ward & Co., 22 AD2d 607, affd 17 NY2d 776).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Londono v. Altenkirsch, 261 A.D.2d 589, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

261 A.D.2d 589 (Londono v. Altenkirsch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related