M & W Registry, Inc. v. Shah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M & W Registry, Inc. v. Shah

61 A.D.3d 726, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 726 (M & W Registry, Inc. v. Shah) 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

M & W Registry, Inc. v. Shah, 61 A.D.3d 726, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Darshan Shah appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 19, 2008, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him.

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

The appellant failed to demonstrate that dismissal of the amended complaint was appropriate pursuant to CPLR 3126 (cf. CPLR 3126 [3]; Sisca v City of Yonkers, N.Y., 24 AD3d 531, 532 [2005]; DeCintio v Ahmed, 276 AD2d 463, 464 [2000]), or CPLR 3216 (cf. CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; [e]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to those statutes to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him. Spolzino, J.E, Florio, Covello and Eng, 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 breach of contract, the defendant Darshan Shah appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 19, 2008, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him.

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

The appellant failed to demonstrate that dismissal of the amended complaint was appropriate pursuant to CPLR 3126 (cf. CPLR 3126 [3]; Sisca v City of Yonkers, N.Y., 24 AD3d 531, 532 [2005]; DeCintio v Ahmed, 276 AD2d 463, 464 [2000]), or CPLR 3216 (cf. CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; [e]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to those statutes to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him. Spolzino, J.E, Florio, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 726, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-w-registry-inc-v-shah-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack