Figueroa v. Hye Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Figueroa v. Hye Realty, Inc.

82 A.D.2d 906, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618

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

DecidedJune 29, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 906 (Figueroa v. Hye Realty, Inc.) 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

Figueroa v. Hye Realty, Inc., 82 A.D.2d 906, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated March 3,1981, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (see CPLR 3025, subd [b]). However, we note that “The showing necessary to uphold the discretion of a court in allowing an amended complaint is different from the showing necessary to withstand summary judgment or dismissal for no cause of action” (see Vastóla v Maer, 48 AD2d 561, 567, affd 39 NY2d 1019). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Hargett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated March 3,1981, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (see CPLR 3025, subd [b]). However, we note that “The showing necessary to uphold the discretion of a court in allowing an amended complaint is different from the showing necessary to withstand summary judgment or dismissal for no cause of action” (see Vastóla v Maer, 48 AD2d 561, 567, affd 39 NY2d 1019). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Hargett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 906, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/figueroa-v-hye-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack