Rutar v. Hawes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rutar v. Hawes

157 A.D.2d 654, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 251

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 654 (Rutar v. Hawes) 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

Rutar v. Hawes, 157 A.D.2d 654, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for breach of contract, St. Francis College appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 3, 1988, as granted the plaintiffs motion to add it as a defendant and for leave to serve a supplemental summons and verified complaint adding it as a defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint (see, CPLR 1003) adding the appellant as a defendant in this action. At this juncture of the proceeding, we pass upon no other issue. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for breach of contract, St. Francis College appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 3, 1988, as granted the plaintiffs motion to add it as a defendant and for leave to serve a supplemental summons and verified complaint adding it as a defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint (see, CPLR 1003) adding the appellant as a defendant in this action. At this juncture of the proceeding, we pass upon no other issue. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 654, 550 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutar-v-hawes-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack