Evans v. Ellis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Ellis

13 A.D.3d 577, 786 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15701

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 577 (Evans v. Ellis) 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

Evans v. Ellis, 13 A.D.3d 577, 786 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to quiet title to certain real property, the plaintiff Abena Evans appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered July 15, 2003, as denied her motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Leszczynski v Kelly & McGlynn, 281 AD2d 519, 520 [2001]; Heckler Elec. Co. v Matrix Exhibits-N.Y., 278 AD2d 279 [2000]; cf. Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm, 8 AD3d 545, 546 [2004]; Fuentes v City of New York, 3 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to quiet title to certain real property, the plaintiff Abena Evans appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered July 15, 2003, as denied her motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Leszczynski v Kelly & McGlynn, 281 AD2d 519, 520 [2001]; Heckler Elec. Co. v Matrix Exhibits-N.Y., 278 AD2d 279 [2000]; cf. Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm, 8 AD3d 545, 546 [2004]; Fuentes v City of New York, 3 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 577, 786 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-ellis-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack