Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard

91 A.D.3d 452, 935 N.Y.2d 880
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 5, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[453]*453Haggerty, nominally not a party but effectively acting as a party, commenced several actions against defendant, the general partner of plaintiff Wadsworth Avenue Associates, one of which sought, among other things, an accounting and repayment of partnership funds allegedly converted or stolen by defendant. The action was dismissed by a final judgment entered May 23, 2005. Haggerty improperly appealed from the interlocutory order dismissing the complaint and not from the subsequently entered final judgment, and his appeal was dismissed (23 AD3d 302 [2005]). He is now seeking leave to amend the complaint in that action. The motion court correctly concluded that Haggerty has no right to seek leave to amend a complaint in an action that has been finally dismissed. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard, 91 A.D.3d 452, 935 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

91 A.D.3d 452 (Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lee v. Lyft, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34526(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Tanner v. Stack
2019 NY Slip Op 7039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)