In re 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp.

280 A.D.2d 483, 720 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1249

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 483 (In re 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp.) 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

In re 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp., 280 A.D.2d 483, 720 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, inter alia, for judicial dissolution of 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp., the petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated September 15, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve an amended petition asserting, among other things, additional allegations of oppressive conduct.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the branch of the petitioners’ motion which was for leave to serve an amended petition. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, inter alia, for judicial dissolution of 344 6th Avenue Owners Corp., the petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated September 15, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve an amended petition asserting, among other things, additional allegations of oppressive conduct.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the branch of the petitioners’ motion which was for leave to serve an amended petition. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 483, 720 N.Y.S.2d 368, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-344-6th-avenue-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack