Search for: "Buran v. Coupal"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2010, 3:00 am
Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 302 AD2d 155, 163-164 [1st Dept 2002]; Buran v. [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 302 AD2d 155, 163-164 [1st Dept 2002]; Buran v. [read post]
28 Feb 2009, 9:54 am
Since notice within the limitations period is "the 'linchpin' of the relation back doctrine" (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 180 [1995]), the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding Chase as a defendant to the action was correct. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:51 am
See Buran v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:34 am
See Buran v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:16 am
No. in Snolis v Clare 2011 NY Slip Op 01455 ; Appellate Division, Second Department the Court writes: "The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they failed to establish that any negligence on the part of the defendants in failing to move for leave to amend the complaint in the personal injury action to add the owner as a defendant, immediately upon learning of the owner's identity, was the proximate cause of… [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:04 am
in Snolis v Clare 2011 NY Slip Op 01455 ; Decided on February 22, 2011 ; Appellate Division, Second Department the Court writes: "The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they failed to establish that any negligence on the part of the defendants in failing to move for leave to amend the complaint in the personal injury action to add the owner as a defendant, immediately upon learning of the owner's identity,… [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 3:56 am
The doctrine is “[a]imed at liberalizing the strict, formalistic pleading requirements of the [nineteenth] century, while at the same time respecting the important policies inherent in statutory repose,” and “enables a plaintiff to correct a pleading error—by adding either a new claim or a new party—after the statutory limitations period has expired” (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995] [citations omitted]). [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 9:24 am
In Matter of Joseph Nemeth v. [read post]
