Katz v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd.

248 A.D.2d 359, 669 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 359 (Katz v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd.) 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

Katz v. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd., 248 A.D.2d 359, 669 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the enforcement of a letter of credit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 4,1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to serve and file a supplemental complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to serve and file a supplemental complaint, since the proposed causes of action against the defendant [360]*360United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. are plainly lacking in merit (see, Sanford v Sanford, 176 AD2d 932, 933; Fisher v Carter Indus., 127 AD2d 817).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the enforcement of a letter of credit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 4,1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to serve and file a supplemental complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to serve and file a supplemental complaint, since the proposed causes of action against the defendant [360]*360United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. are plainly lacking in merit (see, Sanford v Sanford, 176 AD2d 932, 933; Fisher v Carter Indus., 127 AD2d 817).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 359, 669 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-united-mizrahi-bank-ltd-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack