Dorel Steel Erection Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dorel Steel Erection Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

15 A.D.3d 319, 789 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 319 (Dorel Steel Erection Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co.) 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

Dorel Steel Erection Corp. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 15 A.D.3d 319, 789 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[320]*320Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered September 30, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend their complaint a second time, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The first amended complaint, in this action to foreclose on mechanics’ liens, gave adequate notice of work performed pursuant to contract, payment due and liability due to breach, and additionally asked for “such other and further relief’ that the court might deem just and equitable. Accordingly, the grant of plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend again, to allege a formal claim for breach of contract, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (CPLR 3025 [b]; see 240-35 Assoc. v Major Bldrs. Corp., 234 AD2d 234 [1996]). We have considered appellant’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

[320]*320Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered September 30, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend their complaint a second time, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The first amended complaint, in this action to foreclose on mechanics’ liens, gave adequate notice of work performed pursuant to contract, payment due and liability due to breach, and additionally asked for “such other and further relief’ that the court might deem just and equitable. Accordingly, the grant of plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend again, to allege a formal claim for breach of contract, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (CPLR 3025 [b]; see 240-35 Assoc. v Major Bldrs. Corp., 234 AD2d 234 [1996]). We have considered appellant’s remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 319, 789 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorel-steel-erection-corp-v-seaboard-surety-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack