Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.

83 A.D.3d 815, 920 N.Y.S.2d 690

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

DecidedApril 12, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 815 (Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.) 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

Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc., 83 A.D.3d 815, 920 N.Y.S.2d 690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered March 29, 2010, which denied his motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add additional factual allegations. Since the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient to state any causes of action or were patently devoid of merit, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion (see Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 AD3d 1108, 1109-1110 [2010]; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 78 AD3d 945, 946 [2010]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 225-229 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered March 29, 2010, which denied his motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add additional factual allegations. Since the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient to state any causes of action or were patently devoid of merit, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion (see Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 AD3d 1108, 1109-1110 [2010]; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 78 AD3d 945, 946 [2010]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 225-229 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 815, 920 N.Y.S.2d 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shabazz-v-verizon-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack