Parlante v. Cross County Federal Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parlante v. Cross County Federal Savings Bank

251 A.D.2d 476, 673 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 476 (Parlante v. Cross County Federal Savings Bank) 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

Parlante v. Cross County Federal Savings Bank, 251 A.D.2d 476, 673 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated June 18, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court dated November 10, 1997, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 10, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 18, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent Cross County Federal Savings Bank is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended complaint. Although leave to amend is freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), when leave is sought to amend pleadings which were properly dismissed, the court must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to support the proposed amended pleadings (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721, 723; Ott v Automatic Connector, 193 AD2d 657; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433). Here, the plaintiff has failed to disclose any evidentiary facts which would justify such relief (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Ott v Automatic Connector, supra; Dunn v Dunn, supra; Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; Corporate Natl. Realty v Philson Ltd., 232 AD2d 518). Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint (see, Lewis v Akers, 227 AD2d 595, 596; S.A.E. Motor Parts Co. v Tenen[477]*477baum, 226 AD2d 518, 519). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Gold-stein and Luciano, 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 a fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated June 18, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court dated November 10, 1997, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 10, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 18, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent Cross County Federal Savings Bank is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended complaint. Although leave to amend is freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), when leave is sought to amend pleadings which were properly dismissed, the court must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to support the proposed amended pleadings (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721, 723; Ott v Automatic Connector, 193 AD2d 657; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433). Here, the plaintiff has failed to disclose any evidentiary facts which would justify such relief (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Ott v Automatic Connector, supra; Dunn v Dunn, supra; Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; Corporate Natl. Realty v Philson Ltd., 232 AD2d 518). Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint (see, Lewis v Akers, 227 AD2d 595, 596; S.A.E. Motor Parts Co. v Tenen[477]*477baum, 226 AD2d 518, 519). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 476, 673 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parlante-v-cross-county-federal-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack