From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R T Holding Corp. v. Commack Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-08619.

June 20, 2006.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered January 5, 2005, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 325 to remove this action from District Court to the Supreme Court, and, upon removal, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve an amended complaint increasing the ad damnum clause and adding causes of action based on specific performance and unjust enrichment.

Mark E. Nadjar, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for appellant.

John G. Poli III, P.C., Northport, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that this action was "mistakenly" commenced in the District Court ( see CPLR 325 [a]) or that she is entitled to money damages in an amount that the District Court was without jurisdiction to award ( see CPLR 325 [b]; Cohen v. Kim, 23 AD3d 602; Barsoum v. Wilson, 255 AD2d 537, 537-538; Lopez v. Alexander, 251 AD2d 297; Gambino v. Swan, 152 AD2d 620, 621).


Summaries of

R T Holding Corp. v. Commack Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

R T Holding Corp. v. Commack Realty, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:R T HOLDING CORP., Appellant, v. COMMACK REALTY, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4994
816 N.Y.S.2d 382

Citing Cases

SHANY v. 99-60/64TH STREET LLC

Accordingly, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that this action was "mistakenly" commenced in the Civil…