From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Infusino v. Maggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 23, 1965
24 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

June 23, 1965

Appeal from the Oneida Special Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Order and judgment entered thereon, unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied, with $10 costs, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein. Memorandum: Issues of fact are presented that require a trial. Moreover, technical defects in the pleading of an adversary are not available to a plaintiff upon an application for summary judgment. ( Curry v. MacKenzie, 239 N.Y. 267, 272; Werfel v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N.Y. 91, 93.) Lastly, in the exercise of a proper discretion, Special Term, inasmuch as it was permitting plaintiff to substantially amend his complaint, should have granted leave to defendant to serve an amended answer thereto.


Summaries of

Infusino v. Maggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 23, 1965
24 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Infusino v. Maggio

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY J. INFUSINO, Respondent, v. JOHN MAGGIO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 23, 1965

Citations

24 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Westinghouse Elec. Sup. v. Pyramid Champlain

Supreme Court correctly allowed the contractor to amend its answer and to assert additional cross claims…

Cristiano v. Illinois National Ins. Co.

The fact that plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the policy issued by defendant was a standard fire…