Reznick v. Tanen
| Decision Date | 18 June 1990 |
| Citation | 162 A.D.2d 594,556 N.Y.S.2d 777 |
| Parties | Bruce S. REZNICK, Appellant-Respondent. v. David TANEN, et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jerome L. Steinberg, Brooklyn (Thomas Torto, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Mintz, Fraade & Zieger, P.C., New York City (Alan M. Rubin, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Before HARWOOD, J.P., and BALLETTA, ROSENBLATT and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for tortious interference with contractual relations and for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated August 8, 1988, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants cross appeal from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiff leave "to replead and to frame a new complaint".
ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all four causes of action alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, but granted the plaintiff leave to replead.
On appeal, the plaintiff does not dispute that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was appropriate. However, the defendants correctly contend that it was error for the Supreme Court to grant the plaintiff leave to replead. The plaintiff's argument that the court could properly infer from the record that the plaintiff possessed an unpleaded cause of action for breach of the parties' stipulation of settlement of a prior action, and therefore, grant leave to replead, is without merit. Having granted summary judgment based on the facts before it, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the plaintiff leave to replead (Buckley & Co. v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, 935, 505 N.Y.S.2d 140).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MBIA Ins. Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Sec., LLC
...; see also Matter of Allen v. McLean, 138 A.D.3d 738, 739, 27 N.Y.S.3d 877 ). Accordingly, the defendant's reliance on Reznick v. Tanen, 162 A.D.2d 594, 556 N.Y.S.2d 777 and Buckley & Co. v. New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, 933–935, 505 N.Y.S.2d 140 is misplaced. “Applications for leave to amend p......
-
6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead
...based on an alleged restrictive covenant (see Hanover Ins. Co. v. Carley, 234 A.D.2d 268, 269, 650 N.Y.S.2d 782 ; Reznick v. Tanen, 162 A.D.2d 594, 556 N.Y.S.2d 777 ; see also Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 119, 120, 768 N.Y.S.2d 198 ). RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS,......
-
Greater Bright Light Home Care Servs., Inc. v. Jeffries-El
...abetting conversion based upon the same transactions, indicating that El Equity's contentions were without merit (see Reznick v. Tanen, 162 A.D.2d 594, 556 N.Y.S.2d 777 ). Under the circumstances, El Equity's belated assertion of new theories of liability did not warrant granting leave to a......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Carley
...in granting the plaintiff permission to replead so as to assert a cause of action against one of the appellants (see, Reznick v. Tanen, 162 A.D.2d 594, 556 N.Y.S.2d 777; Buckley & Co. v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, 505 N.Y.S.2d ...