Futia v. Spano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Futia v. Spano

282 A.D.2d 705, 724 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 705 (Futia v. Spano) 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

Futia v. Spano, 282 A.D.2d 705, 724 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for [706]*706a judgment declaring that the sale of bonds secured by proceeds due to the defendant Westchester County under a tobacco litigation settlement agreement is unconstitutional, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered February 16, 2000, as, upon determining that they waived their right to amend their complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a), granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs waived their right to amend their complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a) when they agreed to serve and file an amended complaint by December 30, 1999. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly disregarded the amended complaints served and filed after that date (see, Nishman v DeMarco, 76 AD2d 360, 368-369; Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424, 436). Accordingly, the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for [706]*706a judgment declaring that the sale of bonds secured by proceeds due to the defendant Westchester County under a tobacco litigation settlement agreement is unconstitutional, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered February 16, 2000, as, upon determining that they waived their right to amend their complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a), granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs waived their right to amend their complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a) when they agreed to serve and file an amended complaint by December 30, 1999. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly disregarded the amended complaints served and filed after that date (see, Nishman v DeMarco, 76 AD2d 360, 368-369; Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424, 436). Accordingly, the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 705, 724 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futia-v-spano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack