From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kurz v. Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1981
81 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

April 20, 1981


In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 25, 1980, which is in favor of defendants, upon the trial court's dismissal of the action at the close of plaintiff's case, at a jury trial. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated May 9, 1977, as denied plaintiff's motion to amend the caption. Judgment reversed and order reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, motion to amend granted, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Bearing in mind that the plaintiff in a wrongful death action is not held to as high a degree of proof as is a plaintiff in a personal injury action (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80), and that, since this case never reached the jury, we must consider plaintiff's proof "in the light most beneficial to plaintiff, allowing every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn" therefrom (see Crane v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 43 N.Y.2d 984, 985), we conclude that plaintiff's proof raised questions of fact which should have been submitted to the jury (see Maresca v Lake Motors, 32 A.D.2d 533, affd 25 N.Y.2d 716; Czerenda v Wright, 2 A.D.2d 928). It was also error for the trial court to have dismissed the complaint against the defendant Flynn's Sharpening Service, Inc., on the further ground that acts of negligence, if any, were committed by William Flynn, doing business as Flynn's Sharpening Service, who had not been named as a defendant in the caption of the pleadings. Significantly, the defendant in question, by its notice of appearance and amended answer, appeared as "Flynn's Sharpening Service" (see CPLR 320, subd [b]). Moreover, the allegations of the complaint fully apprised Flynn's Sharpening Service that it was the party the action was intended to affect (see Ryan v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 20 A.D.2d 270; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 305.16). Accordingly, we also reverse so much of an order, made more than two years before trial, as denied plaintiff's motion to amend the caption of this action (see CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1). Thus, the summons and proof of service of the summons, as well as the other pleadings, are amended so that the last named defendant shall be denominated "William Flynn, d/b/a Flynn's Sharpening Service". Cohalan, J.P., Margett, O'Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kurz v. Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1981
81 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Kurz v. Casey

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY M. KURZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of HENRY J. KURZ…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1981

Citations

81 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

White Plains Galleria v. Woodlawn Partners

It is well settled that "amendments [of a caption] are permitted where the correct party defendant has been…

Provosty v. Lydia E. Hall Hospital

In arguing, inter alia, that the complaint in Action No. 1 must be dismissed, Dr. Neuman correctly maintains…