Greene v. Fitzpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greene v. Fitzpatrick

154 A.D.2d 898

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 898 (Greene v. Fitzpatrick) 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

Greene v. Fitzpatrick, 154 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this action by plaintiff to set aside certain conveyances of real property, Special Term properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact concerning the intention of the parties when they executed a promissory note and mortgage regarding the Wellsville property, whether there was a debt owed by plaintiff to defendant and whether the Wellsville property was intended as security. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant to amend his answer. Leave to amend shall be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]) and the proposed amendment does not add a new theory or cause of action and would not prejudice the plaintiff (see, Cutwright v Central Brooklyn Urban Dev. Corp., 127 AD2d 731). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Sprague, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this action by plaintiff to set aside certain conveyances of real property, Special Term properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact concerning the intention of the parties when they executed a promissory note and mortgage regarding the Wellsville property, whether there was a debt owed by plaintiff to defendant and whether the Wellsville property was intended as security. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant to amend his answer. Leave to amend shall be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]) and the proposed amendment does not add a new theory or cause of action and would not prejudice the plaintiff (see, Cutwright v Central Brooklyn Urban Dev. Corp., 127 AD2d 731). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Sprague, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-fitzpatrick-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack