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

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 584 (Potrzeba v. Union Cemetery of Hyde Park, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 584, 784 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potrzeba-v-union-cemetery-of-hyde-park-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack