Simpson v. Four Keys Enterprises

254 A.D.2d 477, 679 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271

This text of 254 A.D.2d 477 (Simpson v. Four Keys Enterprises) 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
Simpson v. Four Keys Enterprises, 254 A.D.2d 477, 679 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), entered October 14, 1997, wlaich, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying his cross motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to name an additional party, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Four Keys Enterprises, individually and doing business as Show World Center (hereinafter Four Keys), to recover damages for personal injuries. More than three years after the [478]*478cause of action accrued, the plaintiff cross-moved to amend the summons and complaint to name 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter 303 West 42nd), as a defendant. In opposition, it was argued that the Statute of Limitations period had expired, and that 303 West 42nd was not united in interest with Four Keys.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that 303 West 42nd is not united in interest with Four Keys (see, CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173; Ravello v City of New York, 249 AD2d 530; Desiderio v Rubin, 234 AD2d 581). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to name an additional defendant.

The motion of Four Keys for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Buran v. Coupal
661 N.E.2d 978 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Desiderio v. Rubin
234 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Ravello v. City of New York
249 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 477, 679 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-four-keys-enterprises-nyappdiv-1998.