Coffey v. Brodsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coffey v. Brodsky

278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12528

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 191 (Coffey v. Brodsky) 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

Coffey v. Brodsky, 278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to real property, the defendant, William Brodsky, individually and d/b/a Broad-Sky Properties, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Bergerman, J.), dated December 3, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion to add Rockhill Building Corporation as an additional defendant.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant, William Brodsky, individually and d/b/a Broad-Sky Properties is not aggrieved by the order which granted the plaintiffs motion to add Rockhill Building Corporation as an additional defendant under the relation-back doctrine (see, Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to real property, the defendant, William Brodsky, individually and d/b/a Broad-Sky Properties, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Bergerman, J.), dated December 3, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion to add Rockhill Building Corporation as an additional defendant.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant, William Brodsky, individually and d/b/a Broad-Sky Properties is not aggrieved by the order which granted the plaintiffs motion to add Rockhill Building Corporation as an additional defendant under the relation-back doctrine (see, Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-brodsky-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack