Legal Opinion

Chemicraft Corp.v. Honeywell Protection Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 8, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1989, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve, nunc pro tunc, a supplemental summons and amended complaint substituting a new plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action in October 1981 to recover for water damage to certain property alleged to have occurred on December 27, 1980. In November 1988, plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to substitute a different corporation, Perforated Specialties Co., Inc., as the sole plaintiff. Plaintiffs contended…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bellini v. Gersalle Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. Neggy Travel Service, Inc. v. Sabena Belgian World AirlinesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  3. Manhattan Plaza, Inc. v. Air Tech Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of WausauNew York Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Burke, Albright, Harter & Rzepka LLP v. SillsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  3. Kohl v. FuscoCivil Court of the City of New York · 1994
  4. Pecora v. PecoraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API