Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1960 |
| Citation | 12 A.D.2d 639,208 N.Y.S.2d 1004 |
| Parties | GOLDNER TRUCKING CORP., Respondent, v. STOLL PACKING CORP., Appellant, and Fruehauf Trailer Company, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John R. O'Reilly, New York City, for appellant.
Bendes, Stark & Amron, New York City, for respondent. Kenneth M. Stark, New York City, of counsel.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, CHRIST, PETTE and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for conversion, defendant Stoll Packing Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 3, 1959, denying its motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's cross motion to amend its previously amended complaint.
Order modified by striking out its second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs relating to the cross motion, and by substituting therefor a paragraph denying plaintiff's cross motion to amend its complaint, without prejudice to the renewal of such motion upon proper papers. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs.
The papers in support of the motion to amend the complaint are insufficient, in that they do not contain a copy of the proposed amended complaint in full (Hoisting Mach. Co. v. Elderfields Reservation, 195 App.Div. 893, 185 N.Y.S. 933; Plitt v. Illinois Sur. Co., 165 App.Div. 973, 150 N.Y.S. 756).
Furthermore, the order in effect directs that the proposed amendment be deemed effectuated, without provision for service of a copy of the complaint as thus amended. Such procedure is not permissible. It engenders a question of whether it was intended that an answer to the new pleading was to be served or not, and a defendant should not be deprived of a right to answer a new pleading (Kelly v. Hilbert, 200 App.Div. 489, 193 N.Y.S. 263).
As to the motion for summary judgment, the record presents triable issues of fact.
BRENNAN, J., not voting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman Realty & Constr. Corp. v. 151 E. 170th Lender LLC
...1996]; Branch v Abraham and Strauss Department Store, 220 A.D.2d 474, 476 [2d Dept 1995]; Goldner Trucking Corp. v Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1960]). Here, a review of the proposed amended complaint evinces that plaintiff replaces the two causes of action in the compla......
-
Norman Realty & Constr. Corp. v. 151 E. 170th Lender LLC
...1996]; Branch v Abraham and Strauss Department Store, 220 A.D.2d 474, 476 [2d Dept 1995]; Goldner Trucking Corp. v Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1960]). Here, a review of the proposed amended complaint evinces that plaintiff replaces the two causes of action in the compla......
-
Rivera v. City of N.Y.
...and Strauss Department Store, 220 A.D.2d 474, 476, 632 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2d Dept 1995] ; Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639, 640, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1004 [2d Dept 1960] ).Common Law ClaimsPlaintiffs' motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add Marte as a defendant a......
-
Aug. Constr. Grp. v. DeGroat
...1996]; Branch v Abraham and Strauss Department Store, 220 A.D.2d 474, 476 [2d Dept 1995]; Goldner Trucking Corp. v Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639, 640 [2d Dept 1960]). When leave to amend is sought in response to a motion seeking dismissal on grounds that the complaint fails to state a ......