You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO SERVE AN...

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL AND MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have simultaneously granted plaintiff permission to amend the complaint and granted summary judgment on several causes of action. An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and should be answered before any further proceedings:

… Supreme Court should not have awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first, third, and fourth causes of action in the amended complaint, while simultaneously allowing the plaintiff to serve the amended complaint … . “When an amended complaint has been served, it supersedes the original complaint and becomes the only complaint in the case” … . “Since an amended complaint supplants the original complaint, it would unduly prejudice a defendant if it were bound by an original answer when the original complaint has no legal effect” … . As a result, “an amended complaint should ordinarily be followed by an answer” … . Here, the court should not have awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action in the amended complaint before the defendant had answered the amended complaint … . R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants v Gilmartin, 2018 NY Slip Op 07470, Second Dept 11-7-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL AND MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/AMENDED COMPLAINT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL AND MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE FORMER “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA)” PROVIDED IMMUNITY TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RE: COVID-19, HERE DEFENDANT NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMMUNITY WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES DID NOT SUPPORT THE UNDERWRITER’S CLAIM THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HEART CONDITION; THEREFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DOG BITE; PLAINTIFF HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VICIOUS PROPENSITIES PRIOR TO THE BITE.
MOTHER’S REFUSING TO SIGN MEDICAL CONSENT FORMS FOR PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT OF HER CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE NURSING HOME SUED BY DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AS EXECUTOR OF HER MOTHER’S ESTATE BROUGHT A THIRD-PARTY ACTION AGAINST THE DAUGHTER ALLEGING HER MOTHER’S INJURIES DID NOT RESULT FROM A FALL AT THE NURSING HOME BUT RATHER FROM THE DAUGHTER’S NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE NURSING HOME’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE HOME CARE AND SUPERVISION OF HER MOTHER; UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THERE EXISTED NO DUTY OF CARE UNDER WHICH THE DAUGHTER COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTION BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DAMAGES FOR FRAUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED UPON OUT OF POCKET LOSS, NOT PROFITS... CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE NOT DEMONSTRATED...