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

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 589 (Londono v. Altenkirsch) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 589, 688 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/londono-v-altenkirsch-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack