From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenfeld v. Renika Pty. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 5225.

May 31, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered June 11, 2010, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as moot in light of plaintiffs' notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants' favor dismissing the complaint.

Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Michael S. Fischman of counsel), for appellants.

Before: Concur — Mazzarelli, P.J., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.


Plaintiffs' notice of voluntary discontinuance was untimely under CPLR 3217 (a), and was apparently served to avoid an adverse decision on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice ( see McMahan v McMahan, 62 AD3d 619, 620; Citidress II Corp. v Hinshaw Culbertson LLP, 59 AD3d 210, 211; NBN Broadcasting v Sheridan Broadcasting Networks, 240 AD2d 319).


Summaries of

Rosenfeld v. Renika Pty. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Rosenfeld v. Renika Pty. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN ROSENFELD et al., Respondents, v. RENIKA PTY. LTD. et al.…

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

Date published: May 31, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4534
923 N.Y.S.2d 328

Citing Cases

Weinman v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Bureau

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents' cross motion which was pursuant…

Weinman v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Bureau

The DMV and the Board are not persons amenable to suit within the meaning of 42 USC § 1983 (seeWill v.…