Legal Opinion

Meadow Brook National Bank v. Pucillo

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1960PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMario Pittoni, J.

The plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to section 105 of the Civil Practice Act, for leave to amend the title of this action, and to correct all pleadings, proceedings and judgment herein, nunc pro tunc, so that the defendants are designated as “ Enrico Pucillo and Nino’s Continental, Inc.” is denied.

The plaintiff made a personal loan in August, 1955 to Nino Pucillo, who operated Nino’s Continental Restaurant. At that time, defendant Enrico Pucillo did not own the restaurant, nor did he own the real property on which the restaurant was located.

In February, 1958 Enrico Pucillo organized Nino’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Licausi v. AshworthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  2. Becker v. WoodcockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  3. Nutting v. NovemberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Connell v. HaydenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  2. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v. GarciaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  3. Blankman v. Nino's Continental, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Bonded Rental Agency, Inc. v. City of MiamiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API