McElroy v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McElroy v. Bernstein

72 A.D.3d 757, 898 N.Y.S.2d 853

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

DecidedApril 13, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 757 (McElroy v. Bernstein) 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

McElroy v. Bernstein, 72 A.D.3d 757, 898 N.Y.S.2d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated March 17, 2009, which denied, as academic, his motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as we are affirming the Supreme Court’s order awarding summary judgment to the defendants in this action (see McElroy v Bernstein, 72 AD3d 757 [2010] [decided herewith]), we find that the Supreme Court properly denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint adding his wife as a plaintiff asserting derivative claims (see JP Foodservice Distribs., Inc. v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 33 AD3d 316, 317 [2006]; cf. Long Is. Sav. Bank v Savage, 116 AD2d 512, 516 [1986], affd 69 NY2d 751 [1987]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 30583(U).]

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated March 17, 2009, which denied, as academic, his motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as we are affirming the Supreme Court’s order awarding summary judgment to the defendants in this action (see McElroy v Bernstein, 72 AD3d 757 [2010] [decided herewith]), we find that the Supreme Court properly denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint adding his wife as a plaintiff asserting derivative claims (see JP Foodservice Distribs., Inc. v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 33 AD3d 316, 317 [2006]; cf. Long Is. Sav. Bank v Savage, 116 AD2d 512, 516 [1986], affd 69 NY2d 751 [1987]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 30583(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 757, 898 N.Y.S.2d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelroy-v-bernstein-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack