100 Hudson Tenants Corp. v. Laber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

100 Hudson Tenants Corp. v. Laber

98 A.D.2d 692, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20992

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 692 (100 Hudson Tenants Corp. v. Laber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

100 Hudson Tenants Corp. v. Laber, 98 A.D.2d 692, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lee Price, J.), entered November 22, 1982, insofar as it denied appellant’s motion brought, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]), to dismiss the second cause of action in the first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, dismissed as moot, without costs. Subsequent to the denial of defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff served a second amended complaint, and a motion has been made by the defendant to dismiss the second amended complaint, and this motion is presently pending before Special Term. An amended pleading, when served, takes the place of the original pleading. (Branower & Son v Waldes, 173 App Div 676.) Thus, the appeal from the order based on the first amended complaint pleading, is-rendered academic. (Mattsson v Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 78 AD2d 793; Abrams v Community Servs., 76 AD2d 765.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lee Price, J.), entered November 22, 1982, insofar as it denied appellant’s motion brought, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]), to dismiss the second cause of action in the first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, dismissed as moot, without costs. Subsequent to the denial of defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff served a second amended complaint, and a motion has been made by the defendant to dismiss the second amended complaint, and this motion is presently pending before Special Term. An amended pleading, when served, takes the place of the original pleading. (Branower & Son v Waldes, 173 App Div 676.) Thus, the appeal from the order based on the first amended complaint pleading, is-rendered academic. (Mattsson v Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 78 AD2d 793; Abrams v Community Servs., 76 AD2d 765.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 692, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/100-hudson-tenants-corp-v-laber-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack