Warner Licensing Co. v. Kitty Fan Koo & Fashion Franchises, Ltd.

281 A.D.2d 190, 721 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 190 (Warner Licensing Co. v. Kitty Fan Koo & Fashion Franchises, Ltd.) 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
Warner Licensing Co. v. Kitty Fan Koo & Fashion Franchises, Ltd., 281 A.D.2d 190, 721 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered October 28, 1999, which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint only to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of all proceedings in this matter, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting amendment of the complaint (see, Consolidated Edison Co. v General Ace. Ins. Co., 204 AD2d 164). The proposed amended complaint sufficiently cured the alleged defects in the original pleading. Although defendant strenuously argues that plaintiff has pleaded its performance of the agreement in merely conclusory [191]*191terms, defendant has overlooked CPLR 3015 (a), which provides that performance of conditions precedent in a contract need not be pleaded; the burden to plead non-performance “specifically and with particularity” is on the party asserting that contention. Furthermore, plaintiff made a sufficient showing of merit. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Mendez v. Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP
840 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. New York, 2012)
Giant Group, Ltd. v. Andersen
2 A.D.3d 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 190, 721 N.Y.S.2d 235, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-licensing-co-v-kitty-fan-koo-fashion-franchises-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.