Levitt v. Community Preservation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levitt v. Community Preservation Corp.

287 A.D.2d 440, 730 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 440 (Levitt v. Community Preservation 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

Levitt v. Community Preservation Corp., 287 A.D.2d 440, 730 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment [441]*441and for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered June 15, 2000, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied his cross motion for summary judgment or, in alternative, for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for subrogation against the defendant Edgecombe Revitalization Corporation, as that proposed amendment was legally insufficient and devoid of merit (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Duffy v Wetzler, 260 AD2d 596, 597).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann 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 damages for unjust enrichment [441]*441and for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered June 15, 2000, which granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied his cross motion for summary judgment or, in alternative, for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for subrogation against the defendant Edgecombe Revitalization Corporation, as that proposed amendment was legally insufficient and devoid of merit (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Duffy v Wetzler, 260 AD2d 596, 597).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 440, 730 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levitt-v-community-preservation-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack