From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rimfa England v. Sanford

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 1, 1991
578 N.E.2d 437 (N.Y. 1991)

Opinion

Decided July 1, 1991

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, William J. Davis, J.

Jesse T. Wilkins for appellant.

Richard S. McGowan for respondents.


On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. In the absence of such abuse, this Court has no power to review the grant of a discretionary remedy. Hence, the only remaining issue presented by the question certified is whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the requested relief. We conclude that it had this power, and pass on no other issue.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Rimfa England v. Sanford

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 1, 1991
578 N.E.2d 437 (N.Y. 1991)
Case details for

Rimfa England v. Sanford

Case Details

Full title:RIMFA ENGLAND et al., Respondents, v. JAMES SANFORD, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 1, 1991

Citations

578 N.E.2d 437 (N.Y. 1991)
578 N.E.2d 437
573 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

In re Acosta

) II. The Appellate Division's decision should be affirmed because the New York City Department of…