Odell v. 704 Broadway Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Odell v. 704 Broadway Condominium

301 A.D.2d 438, 752 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 509

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 438 (Odell v. 704 Broadway Condominium) 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

Odell v. 704 Broadway Condominium, 301 A.D.2d 438, 752 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 13, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to join a necessary party, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In view of the absence of prejudice to defendants resulting from plaintiff’s joinder of the necessary party less than one month after the deadline set by the motion court for service of an amended complaint, dismissal of the complaint was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Cooper v Shepherd, 280 AD2d 337). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 13, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to join a necessary party, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In view of the absence of prejudice to defendants resulting from plaintiff’s joinder of the necessary party less than one month after the deadline set by the motion court for service of an amended complaint, dismissal of the complaint was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Cooper v Shepherd, 280 AD2d 337). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 438, 752 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odell-v-704-broadway-condominium-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack