Finnegan v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finnegan v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

17 A.D.3d 1061, 793 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4675

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1061 (Finnegan v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Finnegan v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 17 A.D.3d 1061, 793 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 22, 2004. The order denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing any claim for consequential damages on the condition that plaintiff move for leave to amend the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing any claim in the amended complaint that plaintiff might have for consequential damages on the condition that plaintiff “move for leave to amend his [amended] complaint” to allege a claim for consequential damages. Although the second amended complaint is not included in the record on appeal, it is undisputed that Supreme Court granted plaintiffs subsequent motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint asserting a claim for consequential damages. We therefore conclude that the issues involving the first amended complaint are moot and thus the appeal must be dismissed (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879, 880 [1985]; Sutton Inv. Corp. v City of Syracuse, 12 AD3d 1201 [2004]). Present—Green, J.E, Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 22, 2004. The order denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing any claim for consequential damages on the condition that plaintiff move for leave to amend the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing any claim in the amended complaint that plaintiff might have for consequential damages on the condition that plaintiff “move for leave to amend his [amended] complaint” to allege a claim for consequential damages. Although the second amended complaint is not included in the record on appeal, it is undisputed that Supreme Court granted plaintiffs subsequent motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint asserting a claim for consequential damages. We therefore conclude that the issues involving the first amended complaint are moot and thus the appeal must be dismissed (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879, 880 [1985]; Sutton Inv. Corp. v City of Syracuse, 12 AD3d 1201 [2004]). Present—Green, J.E, Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1061, 793 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack