National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Brawdy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Brawdy

238 A.D.2d 943, 661 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4776

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

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 943 (National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Brawdy) 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

National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Brawdy, 238 A.D.2d 943, 661 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiffs motion seeking to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, rearg denied 55 NY2d 801; De Mund v Martin, 103 AD2d 837, 839). The court erred, however, in granting that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint without permitting defendants the opportunity to submit an amended answer (see, CPLR 3025 [d]) because defendants have alleged a defense to a portion of the increase in the ad damnum clause. Consequently, we modify the order and judgment by denying that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment, and by vacating the money judgment. We further modify the order and judgment by granting defendants 20 days from the date of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry to serve an amended answer to the amended complaint. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P.J., Green, Lawton, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiffs motion seeking to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, rearg denied 55 NY2d 801; De Mund v Martin, 103 AD2d 837, 839). The court erred, however, in granting that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint without permitting defendants the opportunity to submit an amended answer (see, CPLR 3025 [d]) because defendants have alleged a defense to a portion of the increase in the ad damnum clause. Consequently, we modify the order and judgment by denying that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment, and by vacating the money judgment. We further modify the order and judgment by granting defendants 20 days from the date of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry to serve an amended answer to the amended complaint. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P.J., Green, Lawton, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 943, 661 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-grange-mutual-insurance-v-brawdy-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack