Sutton Investing Corp. v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton Investing Corp. v. City of Syracuse

12 A.D.3d 1201, 784 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13971

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1201 (Sutton Investing Corp. v. City of Syracuse) 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

Sutton Investing Corp. v. City of Syracuse, 12 A.D.3d 1201, 784 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert J. Nicholson, J.), entered March 5, 2003. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant limited its appeal to that part of an order denying its motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to serve a written verified claim prior to commencement of the action. Because Supreme Court granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and for leave to serve a late notice of claim, issues involving the original complaint are moot (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879, 880 [1985]; Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 AD3d 119, 120 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert J. Nicholson, J.), entered March 5, 2003. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant limited its appeal to that part of an order denying its motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to serve a written verified claim prior to commencement of the action. Because Supreme Court granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and for leave to serve a late notice of claim, issues involving the original complaint are moot (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879, 880 [1985]; Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 AD3d 119, 120 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1201, 784 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-investing-corp-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack