From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. Saccacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1956
1 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Opinion

May 21, 1956


In an action to recover damages for waste, the appeal is from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, as grants a motion for leave to serve an "amended and supplemented" complaint. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While there is no authority for an "amended and supplemented" complaint (cf. Horowitz v. Goodman, 112 App. Div. 13; Homer v. Homer, 282 App. Div. 699), the irregularity may be disregarded under section 105 of the Civil Practice Act, appellants not having been prejudiced thereby. On the record presented, there was no abuse of discretion by the Special Term in permitting an amendment of the pleading. Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Austin v. Saccacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1956
1 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)
Case details for

Austin v. Saccacio

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS W. AUSTIN, Respondent, v. ALICE SACCACIO et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 21, 1956

Citations

1 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Matter of Gridley Bldg. v. Gingold

Subdivision 1 of section 716 of the Real Property Tax Law authorizes but one demand as of right for an…

Brock v. Brock

We express no opinion as to whether the cause of action for separation may be barred under the doctrine of…