Wilson v. Samoval
This text of 194 A.D.2d 723 (Wilson v. Samoval) 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.
Opinion
—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated June 14, 1991, which (1) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and (2) denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (see, Wilson v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 66 NY2d 988; WDM Planning v United Credit Corp., 47 NY2d 50; Angel v Levittown Union Free School Dist. No. 5, 171 AD2d 770) and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Citrin v Royal Ins. Co, 172 AD2d 795). Balletta, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
194 A.D.2d 723, 601 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-samoval-nyappdiv-1993.