Publishers Data Center, Inc. v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Publishers Data Center, Inc. v. Gomez

198 A.D.2d 338, 605 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10659

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 338 (Publishers Data Center, Inc. v. Gomez) 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

Publishers Data Center, Inc. v. Gomez, 198 A.D.2d 338, 605 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs were in compliance with a purchase and sale agreement dated July 1, 1981, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated December 24, 1990, which denied their motion to amend their complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the proposed amendments to the complaint were totally devoid of merit, the Supreme Court properly denied [339]*339the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint (see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784; Sharapata v Town oflslip, 82 AD2d 350, 362, affd 56 NY2d 332). The plaintiffs improperly attempted to base their motion entirely on the existence of an alleged oral modification of the parties’ written agreement in contravention of General Obligations Law § 15-301 (1). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs were in compliance with a purchase and sale agreement dated July 1, 1981, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated December 24, 1990, which denied their motion to amend their complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the proposed amendments to the complaint were totally devoid of merit, the Supreme Court properly denied [339]*339the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint (see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784; Sharapata v Town oflslip, 82 AD2d 350, 362, affd 56 NY2d 332). The plaintiffs improperly attempted to base their motion entirely on the existence of an alleged oral modification of the parties’ written agreement in contravention of General Obligations Law § 15-301 (1). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 338, 605 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/publishers-data-center-inc-v-gomez-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack