Amendola v. Kendzia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amendola v. Kendzia

17 A.D.3d 1109, 793 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1109 (Amendola v. Kendzia) 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

Amendola v. Kendzia, 17 A.D.3d 1109, 793 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch Sr., A.J.), entered June 3, 2004. The order, among other things, dismissed counterclaims one through six as time-barred and, alternatively, dismissed counterclaims two and six as barred by the statute of frauds.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion of counterclaim defendants Frank A. Amendola and Joseph E Bruno and the amended cross motion with respect to counterclaims one through four and reinstating those counterclaims and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Amendola v Kendzia (17 AD3d 1105 [2005]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch Sr., A.J.), entered June 3, 2004. The order, among other things, dismissed counterclaims one through six as time-barred and, alternatively, dismissed counterclaims two and six as barred by the statute of frauds.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion of counterclaim defendants Frank A. Amendola and Joseph E Bruno and the amended cross motion with respect to counterclaims one through four and reinstating those counterclaims and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Amendola v Kendzia (17 AD3d 1105 [2005]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1109, 793 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendola-v-kendzia-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack