Ricci v. New Era Cap Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricci v. New Era Cap Co.

224 A.D.2d 963, 638 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1607

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that [964] plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add causes of action for fraud and constructive fraud was properly denied. The proposed amendment manifestly lacked merit and was " 'palpably insufficient on [its] face’ ” (Washburn v Citibank [S. D.], 190 AD2d 1057; see, Metral v Horn, 213 AD2d 524, 525). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.— Amend Complaint.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that [964] plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add causes of action for fraud and constructive fraud was properly denied. The proposed amendment manifestly lacked merit and was " 'palpably insufficient on [its] face’ ” (Washburn v Citibank [S. D.], 190 AD2d 1057; see, Metral v Horn, 213 AD2d 524, 525). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.— Amend Complaint.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Ricci v. New Era Cap Co., 224 A.D.2d 963, 638 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 963 (Ricci v. New Era Cap Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related