CLP Leasing Co. v. Nessen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CLP Leasing Co. v. Nessen

27 A.D.3d 291, 812 N.Y.S.2d 471

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 291 (CLP Leasing Co. v. Nessen) 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

CLP Leasing Co. v. Nessen, 27 A.D.3d 291, 812 N.Y.S.2d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered November 26, 2004, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew defendants’ prior motion to dismiss the complaint and for leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The theory of continuous representation as a toll of the statute of limitations has already been rejected in this case on its [292]*292merits (see Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565 [2002]), and the defect was not cured by the proposed amendment (cf. Hayden v Josim Assoc., 148 AD2d 495 [1989]). Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to offer reasonable justification for not presenting the purportedly new evidence on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Sokoli v Quality Carton, 286 AD2d 277 [2001]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered November 26, 2004, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew defendants’ prior motion to dismiss the complaint and for leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The theory of continuous representation as a toll of the statute of limitations has already been rejected in this case on its [292]*292merits (see Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565 [2002]), and the defect was not cured by the proposed amendment (cf. Hayden v Josim Assoc., 148 AD2d 495 [1989]). Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to offer reasonable justification for not presenting the purportedly new evidence on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Sokoli v Quality Carton, 286 AD2d 277 [2001]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 291, 812 N.Y.S.2d 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clp-leasing-co-v-nessen-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack