Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.

218 A.D.2d 680, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704

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

DecidedAugust 14, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 218 A.D.2d 680 (Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.) 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

Bello v. Cablevision System Corp., 218 A.D.2d 680, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 3, 1994, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant complaint because the plaintiffs failed to seek leave to replead at the time the defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Licensing Dev. Group v Freedman, 184 AD2d 682; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433; Fleet Factors v Werblin, 138 AD2d 565, 567; Lotito v Lund, 129 AD2d 776; Marcucilli v Alicon Corp., 48 AD2d 703). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated January 3, 1994, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant complaint because the plaintiffs failed to seek leave to replead at the time the defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Licensing Dev. Group v Freedman, 184 AD2d 682; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433; Fleet Factors v Werblin, 138 AD2d 565, 567; Lotito v Lund, 129 AD2d 776; Marcucilli v Alicon Corp., 48 AD2d 703). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 680, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bello-v-cablevision-system-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack