From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-09428

Argued November 7, 2002.

December 9, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered September 20, 2001, as denied those branches of his motion which were for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to impose a constructive trust and for partial summary judgment on the cause of action for an accounting, and granted that branch of his motion which was to add J.P. Morgan Chase Co. as a defendant only to the extent of substituting J.P. Morgan Chase Co. as a defendant in place of J.P. Morgan Co., Incorporated, and (2) the defendants Bankers Trust Company and the Bank of New York cross-appeal from stated portions of the same order.

David Schechter, Wantagh, N.Y., for appellant-respondent.

Levilubarsky Feigenbaum, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrea Likwornik Weiss and Howard B. Levi of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned ( 22 NYCRR 670.8[c],[e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant J.P. Morgan Co., Incorporated, payable by the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend his complaint to add a cause of action, and correctly granted that branch of the motion which was to add J.P. Morgan Chase Co. as a defendant only to the extent of substituting J.P. Morgan Chase Co. as a defendant in place of J.P. Morgan Co., Incorporated (see Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co., 300 A.D.2d 373 [decided herewith]; see also Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co., 292 A.D.2d 578).

The Supreme Court also correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for partial summary judgment since triable issues of fact exist (see Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co., 268 A.D.2d 413).

S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co.

Case Details

Full title:ELLIOTT NORWALK, ETC., appellant-respondent, v. J.P. MORGAN CO.…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 412