Marcello v. Michael Shoe Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcello v. Michael Shoe Corp.

192 A.D.2d 394, 597 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3712

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 394 (Marcello v. Michael Shoe 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

Marcello v. Michael Shoe Corp., 192 A.D.2d 394, 597 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 22, 1992, which to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 16, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint was properly denied for failure to allege facts legally sufficient to establish a prima facie cause of action (Joel v Weber, 166 AD2d 130, 138). The motion to renew was properly denied for failure to explain why the materials submitted thereon were not adduced on the original motion although admittedly then available to plaintiffs (Ganvey Merchandising Corp. v Church Warren Realty Corp., 176 AD2d 476). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 22, 1992, which to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 16, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint was properly denied for failure to allege facts legally sufficient to establish a prima facie cause of action (Joel v Weber, 166 AD2d 130, 138). The motion to renew was properly denied for failure to explain why the materials submitted thereon were not adduced on the original motion although admittedly then available to plaintiffs (Ganvey Merchandising Corp. v Church Warren Realty Corp., 176 AD2d 476). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 394, 597 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcello-v-michael-shoe-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack