Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.

278 A.D.2d 371, 718 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13264

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 371 (Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.) 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

Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C., 278 A.D.2d 371, 718 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the first and second counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, respectively, and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for leave to replead and/or amend their counterclaims and to compel the plaintiffs to appear for depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, as those counterclaims were based on the same allegations which were previously found by this Court to be unsubstantiated (see, Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d 648). That determination is the law of the case (see, Matter of Morrison, 273 AD2d 475; Darema-Rogers v Rogers, 268 AD2d 455).

[372]*372The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for leave to amend their counterclaims (see, Carranza v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 233 AD2d 287).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the first and second counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, respectively, and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for leave to replead and/or amend their counterclaims and to compel the plaintiffs to appear for depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, as those counterclaims were based on the same allegations which were previously found by this Court to be unsubstantiated (see, Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d 648). That determination is the law of the case (see, Matter of Morrison, 273 AD2d 475; Darema-Rogers v Rogers, 268 AD2d 455).

[372]*372The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for leave to amend their counterclaims (see, Carranza v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 233 AD2d 287).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 371, 718 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-enterprises-inc-v-sem-international-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack