Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Youngelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Youngelman

83 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.S.2d 893

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

DecidedApril 5, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 650 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Youngelman) 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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Youngelman, 83 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Adam Youngelman appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated April 13, 2010, as denied his cross motion, inter alia, for leave to serve and file an amended answer.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert defenses, counterclaims, and cross claims (cf. Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 46 AD3d 874, 874-875 [2007]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Adam Youngelman appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated April 13, 2010, as denied his cross motion, inter alia, for leave to serve and file an amended answer.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert defenses, counterclaims, and cross claims (cf. Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 46 AD3d 874, 874-875 [2007]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 650, 919 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-v-youngelman-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack