Paulk v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paulk v. City of Niagara Falls

37 A.D.3d 1061, 827 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1061 (Paulk v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

Paulk v. City of Niagara Falls, 37 A.D.3d 1061, 827 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered July 22, 2005. The order, among other things, granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and denied that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to renew that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the complaint, and upon renewal, denying that part of the cross motion. The court had granted that part of the cross motion “without prejudice” (see generally Pandolf v American Intl. Group, Inc., 16 AD3d 315, 316-317 [2005]), and the material [1062]*1062submitted by plaintiffs in support of renewal, which was in defendant’s possession at the time of the cross motion, “would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Matter of Olsen v County of Nassau, 14 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). Present—Gorski, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered July 22, 2005. The order, among other things, granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and denied that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to renew that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the complaint, and upon renewal, denying that part of the cross motion. The court had granted that part of the cross motion “without prejudice” (see generally Pandolf v American Intl. Group, Inc., 16 AD3d 315, 316-317 [2005]), and the material [1062]*1062submitted by plaintiffs in support of renewal, which was in defendant’s possession at the time of the cross motion, “would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Matter of Olsen v County of Nassau, 14 AD3d 706, 707 [2005]). Present—Gorski, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1061, 827 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulk-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack