Cessna Aircraft Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. State

231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9719

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 667 (Cessna Aircraft Co. v. State) 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

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. State, 231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover dam[668]*668ages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered September 28, 1995, as denied its motion to dismiss the first and fourth causes of action in the original complaint, and granted the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late proposed amended claim.

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

The Court of Claims properly determined that the lease provisions relating to the fuel farm at issue were ambiguous. Thus, it properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the first and fourth causes of action in the original complaint (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162; Telemundo Group v Alden Press, 181 AD2d 453, appeal withdrawn 81 NY2d 760).

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in granting the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late proposed amended claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117, 1118). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover dam[668]*668ages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered September 28, 1995, as denied its motion to dismiss the first and fourth causes of action in the original complaint, and granted the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late proposed amended claim.

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

The Court of Claims properly determined that the lease provisions relating to the fuel farm at issue were ambiguous. Thus, it properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the first and fourth causes of action in the original complaint (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162; Telemundo Group v Alden Press, 181 AD2d 453, appeal withdrawn 81 NY2d 760).

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in granting the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late proposed amended claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; Matter of Gavigan v State of New York, 176 AD2d 1117, 1118). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 667, 647 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cessna-aircraft-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack