From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stauber v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1998
256 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 28, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

In their original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc., are "the agents, servants, employees and representatives" of the United States Department of Energy, "duly authorized" by the United States Department of Energy to act in its behalf. In their motion to dismiss the complaint, the appellants contended that the United States Department of Energy was an indispensable party not subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State courts. The plaintiffs, in response, without any explanation of the jural relationship between the appellants and the United States Department of Energy, cross-moved for leave to amend their complaint to delete allegations that the appellants were agents of the United States Department of Energy. The Supreme Court granted the cross motion and denied the motion.

If a complaint is amended with leave of the court, any formal judicial admission deleted by the amendment is relegated to the status of an informal judicial admission which, although not conclusive, constitutes evidence of the proposition alleged ( see, Bogoni v. Friedlander, 197 A.D.2d 281, 293). The allegations in the original complaint constituted unrefuted evidence that the appellants were acting as agents of the United States Department of Energy. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over an indispensable party should have been granted ( see, CHC Food Serv. v. Ambach, 48 N.Y.2d 932, affg 68 A.D.2d 897; Gleason v. Temple Hill Assocs., 159 A.D.2d 682), and the cross motion for leave to amend the complaint should have been denied on the ground that the amendment was patently devoid of merit ( see, McKiernan v. McKiernan, 207 A.D.2d 825).

Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stauber v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1998
256 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Stauber v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT STAUBER et al., Respondents, v. BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY et…

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

Date published: Dec 28, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
683 N.Y.S.2d 569

Citing Cases

Walker, Truesdell, Roth & Assocs., Inc. v. Globeop Fin. Servs. LLC

An admission in an initial pleading is a "formal judicial admission" which, "even though subject to a…

Walker, Truesdell, Roth & Assocs., Inc. v. Globeop Fin. Servs. LLC

An admission in an initial pleading is a “formal judicial admission” which, “even though subject to a…