From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berman v. Szpilzinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 16, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).


While the attorneys disputed whether plaintiff had served a reply to defendant's counterclaims by mail, the issue was immaterial, as any such failure was at worst inadvertent. Where the omission to reply, if any, caused defendant no prejudice and was corrected by plaintiff upon the first mention thereof to him, the omission should be excused and the counterclaims should proceed to determination on the merits (Stevenson Corp. v Dormitory Auth., 112 A.D.2d 113, 118).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Berman v. Szpilzinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Berman v. Szpilzinger

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL BERMAN, Respondent, v. NATHAN SZPILZINGER, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 16, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 304 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 386

Citing Cases

Ultra Scope Intl. v. Extebank

The extreme sanction of a default judgment is not warranted in this instance as defendant has failed to show…