SCG Architects v. Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SCG Architects v. Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP

82 A.D.3d 953, 918 N.Y.2d 733

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 953 (SCG Architects v. Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP) 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

SCG Architects v. Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP, 82 A.D.3d 953, 918 N.Y.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of res judicata, as the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Rector v City of New York, 74 AD3d 771, 772 [2010]; Summit at Pomona, Ltd. v Village of Pomona, 72 AD3d 797, 799 [2010]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew its prior motion, as the new facts proffered would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Garfinkle Ltd. [954]*954Partnership II v 11 Mecox Bay Inn, Inc., 52 AD3d 467 [2008]; Kletke v GOS Corp., 51 AD3d 875 [2008]; Worthy v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of res judicata, as the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Rector v City of New York, 74 AD3d 771, 772 [2010]; Summit at Pomona, Ltd. v Village of Pomona, 72 AD3d 797, 799 [2010]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew its prior motion, as the new facts proffered would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Garfinkle Ltd. [954]*954Partnership II v 11 Mecox Bay Inn, Inc., 52 AD3d 467 [2008]; Kletke v GOS Corp., 51 AD3d 875 [2008]; Worthy v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 953, 918 N.Y.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scg-architects-v-smith-buss-jacobs-llp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack