Legal Opinion
Burigo v. Di Leo
New York County Courts
Decided March 9, 1963PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
John H. Galloway, Je., J.
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to plead a second canse of action under section 205-a of the General Municipal Law, in order to comply with the decisional requirement that such a cause of action, being sui generis, must be separately stated and submitted. The proposed amended complaint is submitted with the moving papers.
It appears from the original complaint, also submitted on the motion, that the single cause of action therein alleged was framed on the theory of common-law negligence. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, we do not think that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gannon v. Royal Properties, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Sicolo v. Prudential Savings BankNew York Supreme Court · 1956
- Cramer v. NuccitelliNew York Supreme Court · 1956
- Izzillo v. Mulkor Warehousing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1958
- Gannon v. ROYAL PROPS., INC.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kenavan v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- McGee v. Adams Paper & Twine Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Gerhart v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- McAvoy v. Di Leo, New York County Courts1963
- Donovan v. Rapid Ray's Printing & Copying, Inc.Buffalo City Court · 1978