Wadsworth Avenue Assocs. v. Maynard, 91 A.D.3d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Wadsworth Avenue Assocs. v. Maynard, 91 A.D.3d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 453 Haggerty, nominally not a party but effectively acting as a party, commenced several actions against defendant, the general partner of plaintiff Wadsworth…1 citing caseopening of page *453 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Tanner v. Stack, 2019 NY Slip Op 7039 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2019).published
    Assoc. v Maynard, 91 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wadsworth Avenue Associates
v.
Kenneth L. Maynard
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 5, 2012.
Published opinion
91 A.D.3d 452
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*453] Haggerty, nominally not a party but effectively acting as a party, commenced several actions against defendant, the general partner of plaintiff Wadsworth Avenue Associates, one of which sought, among other things, an accounting and repayment of partnership funds allegedly converted or stolen by defendant. The action was dismissed by a final judgment entered May 23, 2005. Haggerty improperly appealed from the interlocutory order dismissing the complaint and not from the subsequently entered final judgment, and his appeal was dismissed (23 AD3d 302 [2005]). He is now seeking leave to amend the complaint in that action. The motion court correctly concluded that Haggerty has no right to seek leave to amend a complaint in an action that has been finally dismissed. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.