Capri v. Power
228 A.D.2d 461, 644 N.Y.2d 292, 644 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6614
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[462] The proposed amended second cause of action, insofar as asserted against the appellants, is patently lacking in merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as against the appellants (see, Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 AD2d 667; Del Bourgo v 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 AD2d 795). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Capri v. Power, 228 A.D.2d 461, 644 N.Y.2d 292, 644 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 461 (Capri v. Power) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
110 Sand Co. v. Nassau Land Improvement Co.
233 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)