Vargas v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vargas v. Fitzgerald

117 A.D.2d 596, 498 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52869

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.2d 596 (Vargas v. Fitzgerald) 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

Vargas v. Fitzgerald, 117 A.D.2d 596, 498 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 28, 1984, as, upon the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the motion of defendant Varsity Transit, Inc., denied plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint following discovery. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court dated July 27, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion, which was, in effecte for renewal.

Order dated March 28, 1984, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by the late Justice Buschmann at Special Term.

Order dated July 27, 1984, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 28, 1984, as, upon the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the motion of defendant Varsity Transit, Inc., denied plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint following discovery. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court dated July 27, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion, which was, in effecte for renewal.

Order dated March 28, 1984, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by the late Justice Buschmann at Special Term.

Order dated July 27, 1984, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 596, 498 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-1986.