From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2011
83 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-03726.

April 12, 2011.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered March 29, 2010, which denied his motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add additional factual allegations. Since the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient to state any causes of action or were patently devoid of merit, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion ( see Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 AD3d 1108, 1109-1110; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 78 AD3d 945, 946; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 225-229).


Summaries of

Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2011
83 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Shabazz v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WENDELL E. SHABAZZ, Appellant, v. VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3048
920 N.Y.S.2d 690

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

The statute further provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just."…

Sparks v. State

The Court presumes that it is Claimant's intention to move pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to seek leave to amend…