Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp.

273 A.D.2d 458, 712 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 458 (Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp.) 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
Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp., 273 A.D.2d 458, 712 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to establish title to certain real property by adverse possession, the defendant Russo Realty Corp. appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County [459]*459(Catterson, J.), dated June 4, 1999, and (2) an order of the same court dated February 18, 2000, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to interpose a defense that RPAPL 541 unconstitutionally deprived it of its right to property.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Motions for leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935). However, where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied (see, Alejandro v Riportella, 250 AD2d 556; Sentry Ins. Co. v Kero-Sun, Inc., 122 AD2d 204; Norman v Ferrara, 107 AD2d 739). Here, the appellant’s proposed defense, that RPAPL 541 unconstitutionally deprived it of its right to property, is totally devoid of merit. Therefore, the motion for leave to amend the answer was properly denied. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Schwartz v. Sayah
83 A.D.3d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Sydnor v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
74 A.D.3d 1185 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Employers Insurance v. Meli & Borelli Associates, Inc.
33 A.D.3d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Wirsing v. Donzi Marine Inc.
30 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Nadkarni v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System
21 A.D.3d 354 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Glaser v. County of Orange
20 A.D.3d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Cerabono v. Price
7 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Crystal House Manor, Inc. v. Totura
5 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.
1 A.D.2d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
AYW Networks, Inc. v. Teleport Communications Group, Inc.
309 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Breco Environmental Contractors, Inc. v. Town of Smithtown
307 A.D.2d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Vengroff Williams & Associates, Inc.
306 A.D.2d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Levine v. Levine
286 A.D.2d 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Silverite Construction Co. v. Town of North Hempstead
285 A.D.2d 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Leszczynski v. Kelly & McGlynn
281 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Monello v. Sottile, Megna, M.D., P. C.
281 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 458, 712 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarantini-v-russo-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2000.