England v. Sanford

578 N.E.2d 437, 78 N.Y.2d 928, 573 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 1002
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1991·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

*930 OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. In the absence of such abuse, this Court has no power to review the grant of a discretionary remedy. Hence, the only remaining issue presented by the question certified is whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the requested relief. We conclude that it had this power, and pass on no other issue.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa.

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

England v. Sanford, 578 N.E.2d 437, 78 N.Y.2d 928, 573 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 1002 (N.Y. 1991).

578 N.E.2d 437 (England v. Sanford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Rosenfeld
7 Misc. 3d 557 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2005)
People v. Compton
277 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Walker v. Pepsico, Inc.
248 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Garrison v. Wm. H. Clark Municipal Equipment, Inc.
239 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Mortka v. K-Mart Corp.
222 A.D.2d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Vamos v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
165 Misc. 2d 388 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)