Lotito's Brooklyn Dairy Products, Inc. v. Freedom Foods

Mount Vernon City Court

Lotito's Brooklyn Dairy Products, Inc. v. Freedom Foods

113 Misc. 2d 115, 448 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2981

CourtMount Vernon City Court

DecidedMarch 20, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 Misc. 2d 115 (Lotito's Brooklyn Dairy Products, Inc. v. Freedom Foods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mount Vernon City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lotito's Brooklyn Dairy Products, Inc. v. Freedom Foods, 113 Misc. 2d 115, 448 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2981 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Sam Eisenberg, J.

This action was commenced against a defendant named as “Freedom Foods”. Following the service of the summons with an indorsed complaint, the plaintiff served an amended summons and indorsed complaint designating the defendant as “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.”

The plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against the defendant “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.”, and the defendant moves to deny and dismiss the motion on the grounds that the amendment changing the name of the defendant was improper. In support of his position, the defendant asserts that there is on file a certificate of doing business as “Freedom Foods” as separate from “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.” The plaintiff responds, to the effect that the courts have frequently permitted the amendment of a summons so as to correct the name of the defendant and it cites as its authority, among other cases, the case of Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops (51 Misc 2d 256).

It is true that in an appropriate case a summons may be amended to correct the name of a party. Such correction may be made under the authority of CPLR 2001. That section of the law contemplates a motion to the court requesting such amendment. However, the plaintiff did not proceed by motion to the court but instead amended its

[116]*116summons as “of course” relying upon CPLR 3025 (subd [a]). That rule permits the amendment of pleadings without leave within 20 days, but, the summons is not a pleading. Pleadings are described in CPLR 3011 and they include complaints, answers, counterclaims, cross claims and interpleaders. A summons is not a pleading and may not be amended without leave of the court. An amendment to correct the name must proceed by application to the court under CPLR 2001. This motion must, therefore, be denied. “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.” is not the defendant before this court at this time.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Sam Eisenberg, J.

This action was commenced against a defendant named as “Freedom Foods”. Following the service of the summons with an indorsed complaint, the plaintiff served an amended summons and indorsed complaint designating the defendant as “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.”

The plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against the defendant “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.”, and the defendant moves to deny and dismiss the motion on the grounds that the amendment changing the name of the defendant was improper. In support of his position, the defendant asserts that there is on file a certificate of doing business as “Freedom Foods” as separate from “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.” The plaintiff responds, to the effect that the courts have frequently permitted the amendment of a summons so as to correct the name of the defendant and it cites as its authority, among other cases, the case of Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops (51 Misc 2d 256).

It is true that in an appropriate case a summons may be amended to correct the name of a party. Such correction may be made under the authority of CPLR 2001. That section of the law contemplates a motion to the court requesting such amendment. However, the plaintiff did not proceed by motion to the court but instead amended its

[116]*116summons as “of course” relying upon CPLR 3025 (subd [a]). That rule permits the amendment of pleadings without leave within 20 days, but, the summons is not a pleading. Pleadings are described in CPLR 3011 and they include complaints, answers, counterclaims, cross claims and interpleaders. A summons is not a pleading and may not be amended without leave of the court. An amendment to correct the name must proceed by application to the court under CPLR 2001. This motion must, therefore, be denied. “Freedom Foods of New York, Inc.” is not the defendant before this court at this time.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 Misc. 2d 115, 448 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotitos-brooklyn-dairy-products-inc-v-freedom-foods-nymtverncityct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack