Rozewicz v. Ciminelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rozewicz v. Ciminelli

116 A.D.2d 990, 498 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51765

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 990 (Rozewicz v. Ciminelli) 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

Rozewicz v. Ciminelli, 116 A.D.2d 990, 498 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Memorandum: In the absence of a timely motion made in accordance with CPLR 2214 and accompanied by a proposed pleading as required by CPLR 1014, it was error for Special Term even to entertain the request of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company to intervene in this action (Matter of Colonial Sand & Stone Co. v Flacke, 75 AD2d 894, 895; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Drake, 29 AD2d 689; Matter of Carriage Hill v Lane, 20 AD2d 914; cf. Ryder v Travelers Ins. Co., 37 AD2d 797; Sterling Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Ambassador Factors Corp., 86 AD2d 547, 548; see, Siegel, NY Prac § 183, at 222-223). Although we affirm, we address no other issue. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Memorandum: In the absence of a timely motion made in accordance with CPLR 2214 and accompanied by a proposed pleading as required by CPLR 1014, it was error for Special Term even to entertain the request of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company to intervene in this action (Matter of Colonial Sand & Stone Co. v Flacke, 75 AD2d 894, 895; Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Drake, 29 AD2d 689; Matter of Carriage Hill v Lane, 20 AD2d 914; cf. Ryder v Travelers Ins. Co., 37 AD2d 797; Sterling Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Ambassador Factors Corp., 86 AD2d 547, 548; see, Siegel, NY Prac § 183, at 222-223). Although we affirm, we address no other issue. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 990, 498 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozewicz-v-ciminelli-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack