Williams v. Feig

12 A.D.3d 504, 783 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13672
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 504 (Williams v. Feig) 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
Williams v. Feig, 12 A.D.3d 504, 783 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Goldy Feig, also known as Goldy Weiss, also known as Goldie Feig Weiss, appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated May 29, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as time-barred and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 3, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 3, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated May 29, 2003, as denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as time-barred is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

[505]*505Ordered that the order dated May 29, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Moreover, since the second amended complaint superseded the amended complaint, the appeal from so much of the order dated May 29, 2003, as denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as time-barred has been rendered academic (see Elegante Leasing, Ltd. v Cross Trans. Svc, Inc., 11 AD3d 650 [2004]; Baker v 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 AD3d 119 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mawere v. Landau
2019 NY Slip Op 1754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pourquoi M.P.S., Inc. v. Worldstar International, Ltd.
64 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Stefanopoulos v. Action Airport Service of L.I., Inc.
35 A.D.3d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 504, 783 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-feig-nyappdiv-2004.