From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norton v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 23, 1961
12 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Summary

In Norton (12 A.D.2d 1003, supra) the court refused to permit defendant to amend the answer to plead a counterclaim, attacking the validity of a judgment of annulling plaintiff's former marriage, where the counterclaim was palpably insufficient on its face.

Summary of this case from Frances B. v. Mark B

Opinion

February 23, 1961

Appeal from the Steuben Special Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion for leave to amend denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: This action is one for divorce. The order granted upon this motion permitted the defendant to amend his answer to plead a counterclaim attacking the validity of a judgment of annullment of a former marriage of the plaintiff. The proposed counterclaim was palpably insufficient on its face. ( Arcuri v. Arcuri, 265 N.Y. 358.)


Summaries of

Norton v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 23, 1961
12 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

In Norton (12 A.D.2d 1003, supra) the court refused to permit defendant to amend the answer to plead a counterclaim, attacking the validity of a judgment of annulling plaintiff's former marriage, where the counterclaim was palpably insufficient on its face.

Summary of this case from Frances B. v. Mark B

In Norton v. Norton (12 A.D.2d 1003) the Appellate Division in the Fourth Department reversed a lower court order permitting amendment to add a counterclaim when the proposed counterclaim "was palpably insufficient on its face".

Summary of this case from Cadran v. Fanni
Case details for

Norton v. Norton

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE K. NORTON, Appellant, v. LLOYD NORTON, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 23, 1961

Citations

12 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Raymond v. Ormsby

We find that the order of Special Term must be affirmed. In so ruling, we note that, although leave to amend…

Prosser v. Gouveia

Leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice to the other party (CPLR 3025, subd [b]).…