Purchase Environmental Protective Ass'n v. Related Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purchase Environmental Protective Ass'n v. Related Properties, Inc.

298 A.D.2d 570, 748 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 570 (Purchase Environmental Protective Ass'n v. Related Properties, 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

Purchase Environmental Protective Ass'n v. Related Properties, Inc., 298 A.D.2d 570, 748 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enforce a stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered July 12, 2001, which granted the separate motions of the defendant BEG Immobilien-Investment Gesellschaft M.B.H., and the defendants Related Properties, Inc., Purchase Corporate Park Associates, VI, L.P., and Purchase Corporate Park Associates II, to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and dismissed the amended complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered October 24, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting its motion for leave to renew and reargue, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order and judgment entered July 12, 2001, is dismissed as superseded by the order entered October 24, 2001, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered October 24, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint based upon docu[571]*571mentary evidence that flatly contradicted the factual claims contained in the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; cf. Smuckler v Mercy Coll., 244 AD2d 329, 330). Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew and reargue was based on a new fact that did not alter the original determination of the motion to dismiss. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to enforce a stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered July 12, 2001, which granted the separate motions of the defendant BEG Immobilien-Investment Gesellschaft M.B.H., and the defendants Related Properties, Inc., Purchase Corporate Park Associates, VI, L.P., and Purchase Corporate Park Associates II, to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), and dismissed the amended complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered October 24, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting its motion for leave to renew and reargue, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order and judgment entered July 12, 2001, is dismissed as superseded by the order entered October 24, 2001, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered October 24, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint based upon docu[571]*571mentary evidence that flatly contradicted the factual claims contained in the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; cf. Smuckler v Mercy Coll., 244 AD2d 329, 330). Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew and reargue was based on a new fact that did not alter the original determination of the motion to dismiss. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 570, 748 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purchase-environmental-protective-assn-v-related-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2002.