Friedman v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts World Wide, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts World Wide, Inc.

26 A.D.3d 161, 807 N.Y.S.2d 565

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 161 (Friedman v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts World Wide, 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

Friedman v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts World Wide, Inc., 26 A.D.3d 161, 807 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty [162]*162Owen Stinson, J.), entered September 22, 2004, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint adding party defendants, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on default, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The motion court’s refusal to consider plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s cross motion effectively constituted a granting of the cross motion on default, and the appeal must be dismissed (CPLR 5511; see Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Serrano, 181 AD2d 731 [1992]). Plaintiffs must move to vacate the default to obtain the review they seek. We note that plaintiffs do not make any arguments relating to the denial of their motion to amend. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty [162]*162Owen Stinson, J.), entered September 22, 2004, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint adding party defendants, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on default, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The motion court’s refusal to consider plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s cross motion effectively constituted a granting of the cross motion on default, and the appeal must be dismissed (CPLR 5511; see Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Serrano, 181 AD2d 731 [1992]). Plaintiffs must move to vacate the default to obtain the review they seek. We note that plaintiffs do not make any arguments relating to the denial of their motion to amend. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 161, 807 N.Y.S.2d 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-starwood-hotels-resorts-world-wide-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack