A. A. Sutain, Ltd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.E.2d 674 (NY 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
A. A. Sutain, Ltd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.E.2d 674 (NY 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Fitness Inst., Inc. v. Hallac (nyappdiv, 2020-12-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" The Fitness Inst., Inc. v. Hallac
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
"Mistakes relating to the name of a party involving a misnomer or misdescription of the legal status of a party surely fall within the category of those irregularities which are subject to correction by amendment, particularly where the other party is not prejudiced and should have been well aware from the outset that a misdescription was involved" ( Cutting Edge v Santora , 4 AD3d 867, 868 [4th Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see A. A. Sutain, Ltd. v Montgomery Ward & Co. , 22 AD2d 607, 608-609 [1st Dept 1965], affd 17 NY2d 776 [1966]; Covino , 42 AD2d at 80 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
A. A. Sutain, Ltd.
v.
Montgomery Ward & Company
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 28, 1966.
217 N.E.2d 674
John M. Johnston and John D. Lockton, Jr., for appellant., Alfred H. Adler and Joseph Goldberg for respondent.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scilepfi, Bergan and Keating.