Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Todisco v. Econopouly

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

Decided November 6, 1989Published

1ConcurrenceRosenblatt, J.

I concur in the result, but I reach it by a different reasoning process, and would stress certain considerations that relate to CPLR 3015 (e). The statute, in clear terms, speaks of causes of action based on after-acquired licenses. By denying the motion for leave to amend the complaint, the Supreme Court concluded that the failure to have the license at the time of performance is an unconditional, legal bar to recovery, and that it is incurable, no matter what.

The court did not exercise its discretion in denying the motion, but premised its denial on its belief that the statute does not…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Charlebois v. J.M. Weller Associates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Johnston v. . DahlgrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  4. Magill v. LewisNevada Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Schloss v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API