Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Robert H. Metott et al., Respondents, v. Syncro Machine Company, as Subsidiary of Carlisle Corporation, Respondent, and Carlisle Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants
210 A.D.2d 897621 N.Y.S.2d 1015·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1994·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Robert H. Metott et al., Respondents, v Syncro Machine Company, as Subsidiary of Carlisle Corporation, Respondent, and Carlisle Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[621 NYS2d 1015]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant Carlisle Corporation (Carlisle) appeals from an order denying its cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Carlisle contends that plaintiffs’ attempt to amend the complaint to add it as a defendant was improper. We agree with Carlisle that plaintiffs should have sought leave to add the party defendant. The failure of plaintiffs to do so, however, is not fatal. Carlisle waived the defect by failing to move promptly to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with CPLR 1003 (see, Gavigan v Gavigan, 123 AD2d 823; Alexander, 1994 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1003:1, 1995 Pocket Part, at 184). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.