From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rutar v. Hawes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint (see, CPLR 1003) adding the appellant as a defendant in this action. At this juncture of the proceeding, we pass upon no other issue. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rutar v. Hawes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Rutar v. Hawes

Case Details

Full title:SIDNEY RUTAR, Respondent, v. JOHN K. HAWES et al., Defendants, and ST…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 754

Citing Cases

Kinzelberg v. Design Quest

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiff's…