Staheli v. Aetna Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Staheli v. Aetna Insurance

52 A.D.2d 754, 382 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459

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

DecidedApril 15, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 754 (Staheli v. Aetna Insurance) 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

Staheli v. Aetna Insurance, 52 A.D.2d 754, 382 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant-appellant contends that in this action for recovery of a fire loss Special Term abused its discretion by permitting plaintiff-respondent to amend the title of the summons by deleting the words "Patricia Staheli, d/b/a J & K Upholstery Center, Inc.”, plaintiff, therefrom and inserting in its place as plaintiff the words "J & K Upholstery Center, Inc.”. Patricia Staheli is in fact the principal stockholder and vice-president of the named corporation. Defendant argues that this change adds a new additional party who would be barred by the insurance policy’s one-year limitation for commencement of the action after the loss had occurred. CPLR 305 (subd [c]) provides that: "At any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any summons * * * to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced”. The action was in fact timely commenced and certainly the defendant is not prejudiced by what was clearly a mistake. In a very similar fact situation we stated "It is elementary that mistakes or irregularities not affecting a substantial right of a party are not fatal. Mistakes relating to the name of a party involving a misnomer or misdescription of the legal status of a party surely fall within the category of those irregularities which are subject to correction by amendment, particularly when the other party is not prejudiced and should have been well aware from the outset that a misdescription was involved [citing texts and statutes]” (Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80; Ryan v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 20 AD2d 270; Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops, 51 Misc 2d 256, affd 28 AD2d 826). (Appeals from order of Steuben Supreme Court—amend complaint.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant-appellant contends that in this action for recovery of a fire loss Special Term abused its discretion by permitting plaintiff-respondent to amend the title of the summons by deleting the words "Patricia Staheli, d/b/a J & K Upholstery Center, Inc.”, plaintiff, therefrom and inserting in its place as plaintiff the words "J & K Upholstery Center, Inc.”. Patricia Staheli is in fact the principal stockholder and vice-president of the named corporation. Defendant argues that this change adds a new additional party who would be barred by the insurance policy’s one-year limitation for commencement of the action after the loss had occurred. CPLR 305 (subd [c]) provides that: "At any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any summons * * * to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced”. The action was in fact timely commenced and certainly the defendant is not prejudiced by what was clearly a mistake. In a very similar fact situation we stated "It is elementary that mistakes or irregularities not affecting a substantial right of a party are not fatal. Mistakes relating to the name of a party involving a misnomer or misdescription of the legal status of a party surely fall within the category of those irregularities which are subject to correction by amendment, particularly when the other party is not prejudiced and should have been well aware from the outset that a misdescription was involved [citing texts and statutes]” (Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80; Ryan v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 20 AD2d 270; Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops, 51 Misc 2d 256, affd 28 AD2d 826). (Appeals from order of Steuben Supreme Court—amend complaint.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 754, 382 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staheli-v-aetna-insurance-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack