Legal Opinion
Ozen v. Yilmaz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 2, 1992PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Hamza Yilmaz and 4000 Hempstead, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated April 11, 1990, as (1) directed them to pay for the costs of an interpreter at their examinations before trial, and (2) denied their cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include new affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.
Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendants’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In re U. S. Pioneer Electronics Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Nitz v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- In re Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Hypertronics Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- D'Onofrio v. St. Joseph's Hospital Health CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Norwood v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2022