RBP of 400 W42 St., Inc. v. 400 West 42nd Street Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RBP of 400 W42 St., Inc. v. 400 West 42nd Street Realty Associates

27 A.D.3d 250, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 250 (RBP of 400 W42 St., Inc. v. 400 West 42nd Street Realty Associates) 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

RBP of 400 W42 St., Inc. v. 400 West 42nd Street Realty Associates, 27 A.D.3d 250, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered May 13, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff tenant sought to add claims already rendered merit-less by the court’s previous and undisturbed finding that defendant landlord had not acted in bad faith in refusing to consent to a proposed assignment of the lease and invoking the provisions for its recapture. Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from delay (CPLR 3025 [b]), leave should be denied where, as here, the proposed claim is palpably insufficient (Bencivenga & Co. v Phyfe, 210 AD2d 22 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered May 13, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff tenant sought to add claims already rendered merit-less by the court’s previous and undisturbed finding that defendant landlord had not acted in bad faith in refusing to consent to a proposed assignment of the lease and invoking the provisions for its recapture. Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from delay (CPLR 3025 [b]), leave should be denied where, as here, the proposed claim is palpably insufficient (Bencivenga & Co. v Phyfe, 210 AD2d 22 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 250, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rbp-of-400-w42-st-inc-v-400-west-42nd-street-realty-associates-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack