Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles

209 A.D.2d 1009, 619 N.Y.S.2d 991
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. "A party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court * * * Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3025 [b]). Defendant has not shown that it will be prejudiced as a result of the amendment, except perhaps by exposure to greater liability, which is not enough to defeat the amendment (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23). Neither can it be said that the proposed amendment is patently lacking in merit (see, Boccio v Aspin Trucking Corp., 93 AD2d 983). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.—Amended Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles, 209 A.D.2d 1009, 619 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

209 A.D.2d 1009 (Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Empire Vision Center, Inc. v. Wilson
212 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)