Schulz v. Amodeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulz v. Amodeo

255 A.D.2d 499, 680 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12710

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 499 (Schulz v. Amodeo) 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

Schulz v. Amodeo, 255 A.D.2d 499, 680 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the Commissioner of Finance of Dutchess County from making payments to the defendant Hyde Park Fire and Water District for delinquent special assessments, (1) the plaintiffs Robert L. Schulz, Fairlene G. Rabenda, and C. Bradley Lynch appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated September 3, 1997, and (2) Culinary Institute of America separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of the same order, which, inter alia, denied its motion to amend the complaint to add three new causes of action and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs Robert L. Schulz, Fairlene G. Rabenda, and C. Bradley Lynch is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Culinary Institute of America; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by Culinary Institute of America.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion by Culinary Institute of America (hereinafter Culinary Institute) for leave to amend its complaint (see, Marazzo v Marazzo, 234 AD2d 273).

We have examined Culinary Institute’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the Commissioner of Finance of Dutchess County from making payments to the defendant Hyde Park Fire and Water District for delinquent special assessments, (1) the plaintiffs Robert L. Schulz, Fairlene G. Rabenda, and C. Bradley Lynch appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated September 3, 1997, and (2) Culinary Institute of America separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of the same order, which, inter alia, denied its motion to amend the complaint to add three new causes of action and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.