Aspen American Insurance v. Kodukula

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aspen American Insurance v. Kodukula

139 A.D.3d 545, 30 N.Y.S.3d 558

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket1204 160606/14

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 545 (Aspen American Insurance v. Kodukula) 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

Aspen American Insurance v. Kodukula, 139 A.D.3d 545, 30 N.Y.S.3d 558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered July 24, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue the court’s prior order, entered April 28, 2015, only to the extent that it required that plaintiff proceed by cross motion for leave to replead and *546 submit an amended complaint, and upon reargument, vacated the requirement and otherwise adhered to its prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The motion court dismissed plaintiffs claims as against Flat Rate Movers Ltd. for failure to state a cause of action, and thus plaintiff was free to commence a new action for the identical relief (see CPLR 205 [a]). Inasmuch as plaintiff has commenced a new action against Flat Rate, dismissal of the appeal, based on the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to replead, is warranted.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered July 24, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue the court’s prior order, entered April 28, 2015, only to the extent that it required that plaintiff proceed by cross motion for leave to replead and *546 submit an amended complaint, and upon reargument, vacated the requirement and otherwise adhered to its prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The motion court dismissed plaintiffs claims as against Flat Rate Movers Ltd. for failure to state a cause of action, and thus plaintiff was free to commence a new action for the identical relief (see CPLR 205 [a]). Inasmuch as plaintiff has commenced a new action against Flat Rate, dismissal of the appeal, based on the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to replead, is warranted.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 545, 30 N.Y.S.3d 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aspen-american-insurance-v-kodukula-nyappdiv-2016.