Case Name: Rimfa England et al., Respondents, v. James Sanford, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-07-01
Citations: 78 N.Y.2d 928
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rimfa England et al., Respondents, v James Sanford, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 928–930

Head Matter:
Rimfa England et al., Respondents, v James Sanford, Appellant.
Decided July 1, 1991
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Jesse T Wilkins for appellant.
Richard S. McGowan for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 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.