From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pickholz v. First Boston, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1994
202 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 15, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


The third amended complaint's cause of action for defamation is not time barred since it merely expands upon and relates back to the defamation claims made in the first, timely amended complaint (CPLR 203 [f]; see, Kaplan v. K. Ginsburg, Inc., 8 A.D.2d 726). Moreover, the defamation causes of action were pleaded with sufficient specificity (CPLR 3016 [a]).

We have considered all other issues and find them to be meritless.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Pickholz v. First Boston, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1994
202 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Pickholz v. First Boston, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GARY PICKHOLZ et al., Respondents, v. FIRST BOSTON, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 15, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 659

Citing Cases

Kandell v. Saunders

We also note the parties' ensuing stipulation did not preserve any claim by defendant condominium association…

Gottwald v. Sebert

An amendment that "merely adds a new theory of recovery . . . arising out of a transaction or occurrence…