Legal Opinion

Levert v. Central School District No. 6

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1960PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMario Pittont, J.

Motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer denied.

Ordinarily the merits of the proposed pleading are not considered on a motion of this type, but where it clearly appears that the amendment is without merit permission to amend will be denied (see Brancato v. Ambrosio, 8 Misc 2d 735; Hasen v. Apsel, 17 Misc 2d 858). Here, the defendant in the proposed supplemental answer intends to plead as a bar to the action the failure to comply with the requirement of section 3813 of the Education Law that a written verified claim he submitted before an action may be commenced. But it is obvious that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Randall v. HoffNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Hasen v. ApselNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Brancato v. AmbrosioNew York Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Union Free School District No. 6 v. New York State Human Rights Appeal BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Ruocco v. DoyleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  3. Ruocco v. DoyleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API