Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard

91 A.D.3d 452, 935 N.Y.2d 880

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 452 (Wadsworth Avenue Associates v. Maynard) 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

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

Pincite

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

[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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 452, 935 N.Y.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadsworth-avenue-associates-v-maynard-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack