Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York

63 A.D.2d 901, 406 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11908

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

DecidedJune 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 901 (Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Rapid Rehabilitation Corp. v. City of New York, 63 A.D.2d 901, 406 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (two papers), Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered August 2, 1977 and October 18, 1977, respectively, dismissing the causes of action against the City of New York, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing that the dismissal is without prejudice to the plaintiff’s applying at Special Term, within 20 days of publication of this decision in the New York Law Journal, for leave to serve an amended complaint against the City of New York and at the same time to apply to vacate the judgment in the event leave is granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by Special Term that the papers submitted by the appellant, Rapid Rehabilitation Corp., Inc. (Rapid), fail to show any acts or omissions on the part of the City of New York sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint. We further note that there was no request made by Rapid for leave to replead. However, if there are evidentiary facts which would warrant recovery, Rapid should be afforded an opportunity to pursue its remedies and to submit a proposed amended complaint which would justify the granting of leave to replead (CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727, 729). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (two papers), Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered August 2, 1977 and October 18, 1977, respectively, dismissing the causes of action against the City of New York, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing that the dismissal is without prejudice to the plaintiff’s applying at Special Term, within 20 days of publication of this decision in the New York Law Journal, for leave to serve an amended complaint against the City of New York and at the same time to apply to vacate the judgment in the event leave is granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by Special Term that the papers submitted by the appellant, Rapid Rehabilitation Corp., Inc. (Rapid), fail to show any acts or omissions on the part of the City of New York sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint. We further note that there was no request made by Rapid for leave to replead. However, if there are evidentiary facts which would warrant recovery, Rapid should be afforded an opportunity to pursue its remedies and to submit a proposed amended complaint which would justify the granting of leave to replead (CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727, 729). Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 901, 406 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapid-rehabilitation-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack