Majestic Investors, Ltd. v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Majestic Investors, Ltd. v. Lopez

111 A.D.2d 844, 490 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50097

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

DecidedJune 17, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 844 (Majestic Investors, Ltd. v. Lopez) 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

Majestic Investors, Ltd. v. Lopez, 111 A.D.2d 844, 490 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 19, 1984, which denied appellant’s motion, among other things, to amend her answer and third-party amended answer.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The note of issue in this action was filed by appellant in February 1979. The case reached the Day Calendar in October 1979, but was marked off due to the absence of appellant’s former husband, who had died in December 1978. Appellant wife obtained letters of administration in 1981 and thereafter the lawsuit lay dormant until April 1984, when appellant moved, inter alia, to amend her answer and third-party amended answer. The moving papers proffered no excuse for the delay of over three years in moving to amend, contained an inadequate affidavit of merits, and failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the other parties (see, Warner v Kudler, 101 AD2d 886). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 19, 1984, which denied appellant’s motion, among other things, to amend her answer and third-party amended answer.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The note of issue in this action was filed by appellant in February 1979. The case reached the Day Calendar in October 1979, but was marked off due to the absence of appellant’s former husband, who had died in December 1978. Appellant wife obtained letters of administration in 1981 and thereafter the lawsuit lay dormant until April 1984, when appellant moved, inter alia, to amend her answer and third-party amended answer. The moving papers proffered no excuse for the delay of over three years in moving to amend, contained an inadequate affidavit of merits, and failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the other parties (see, Warner v Kudler, 101 AD2d 886). Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 844, 490 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majestic-investors-ltd-v-lopez-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack