Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles

209 A.D.2d 1009, 619 N.Y.S.2d 991

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1009 (Almor Associates v. Town of Skaneateles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1009, 619 N.Y.S.2d 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almor-associates-v-town-of-skaneateles-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack