Schneidman v. Tollman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneidman v. Tollman

279 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 99

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 276 (Schneidman v. Tollman) 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

Schneidman v. Tollman, 279 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 99 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 18, 2000, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly held that plaintiffs have standing to interpose their amended complaint, since their individual claims are separate and independent from a claim on behalf of the partnership (see, MK W. St. Co. v Meridien Hotels, 184 AD2d 312, 313). The motion court also properly found that plaintiffs’ amended pleadings were not time-barred, since they relate back to the original complaint, merely adding “additional factual detail” (see, State of New York v St. James Nursing Home, 128 AD2d 694, 695). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom . and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 18, 2000, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly held that plaintiffs have standing to interpose their amended complaint, since their individual claims are separate and independent from a claim on behalf of the partnership (see, MK W. St. Co. v Meridien Hotels, 184 AD2d 312, 313). The motion court also properly found that plaintiffs’ amended pleadings were not time-barred, since they relate back to the original complaint, merely adding “additional factual detail” (see, State of New York v St. James Nursing Home, 128 AD2d 694, 695). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom . and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 276, 718 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneidman-v-tollman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack