Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections

126 A.D.3d 781, 2 N.Y.S.3d 802

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2015

Docket2014-00297

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 781 (Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections) 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

Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections, 126 A.D.3d 781, 2 N.Y.S.3d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 9, 2013, which denied those branches of his motion which were *782 for leave to amend the complaint and, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated March 29, 2013, issued after a hearing, determining that he engaged in frivolous conduct and directing him to pay costs to certain defendants and sanctions to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

Ordered that the order dated December 9, 2013, is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit (see Reyes v Brinks Global Servs. USA, Inc., 112 AD3d 805 [2013]; Torres v Louzoun Enters., Inc., 105 AD3d 945 [2013]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate an order dated March 29, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that he engaged in frivolous conduct and directed him to pay costs to certain defendants and a sanction to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The new evidence submitted by the plaintiff would not have changed the outcome (see CPLR 5015 [a] [2]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, 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 breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 9, 2013, which denied those branches of his motion which were *782 for leave to amend the complaint and, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated March 29, 2013, issued after a hearing, determining that he engaged in frivolous conduct and directing him to pay costs to certain defendants and sanctions to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.