From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ricci v. New Era Cap Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Harvey, J.). We add only that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add causes of action for fraud and constructive fraud was properly denied. The proposed amendment manifestly lacked merit and was "`palpably insufficient on [its] face'" (Washburn v. Citibank [S.D.], 190 A.D.2d 1057; see, Metral v. Horn, 213 A.D.2d 524, 525).


Summaries of

Ricci v. New Era Cap Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Ricci v. New Era Cap Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CARL R. RICCI, Doing Business as C.R. RICCI ATHLETIC SALES, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Feb 2, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 373

Citing Cases

Razey v. Wacht

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to add defendant's daughter as…

Potentia Mgmt. Grp. v. D.W.

Being that there is a motion to dismiss and motion to amend pending, such will be considered together as if a…