Potrzeba v. Union Cemetery of Hyde Park, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potrzeba v. Union Cemetery of Hyde Park, Inc.

12 A.D.3d 584, 784 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2004·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, [585]*585from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated September 9, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a second amended complaint to the extent it alleged causes of action sounding in defamation and libel per se.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs leave to serve a second amended complaint to the extent it alleged causes of action sounding in defamation and libel per se (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769 [1988]; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm, 8 AD3d 545, 546 [2004]; Arcuri v Ramos, 7 AD3d 741 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Ritter, H. Miller and Spolzino, 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 defamation, the defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, [585]*585from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated September 9, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a second amended complaint to the extent it alleged causes of action sounding in defamation and libel per se.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs leave to serve a second amended complaint to the extent it alleged causes of action sounding in defamation and libel per se (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769 [1988]; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm, 8 AD3d 545, 546 [2004]; Arcuri v Ramos, 7 AD3d 741 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Ritter, H. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Potrzeba v. Union Cemetery of Hyde Park, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 584, 784 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

12 A.D.3d 584 (Potrzeba v. Union Cemetery of Hyde Park, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related