Aurora Medical Group, P.C. v. Genewick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aurora Medical Group, P.C. v. Genewick

68 A.D.3d 1769, 890 N.Y.2d 849

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of its employment contract with defendant. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted [1770]*1770plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to serve a second amended complaint. “[Generally, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment[s are] not patently lacking in merit . . ., and the decision whether to grant leave to amend a [pleading] is committed to the sound discretion of the court” (Tag Mech. Sys., Inc. v V.I.P. Structures, Inc., 63 AD3d 1504, 1505 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]). Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendments “are based upon the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the first amended complaint and are not time-barred” (Maxon v Franklin Traffic Serv., 261 AD2d 830, 830 [1999]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.E, Smith, Fahey and Garni, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of its employment contract with defendant. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted [1770]*1770plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to serve a second amended complaint. “[Generally, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment[s are] not patently lacking in merit . . ., and the decision whether to grant leave to amend a [pleading] is committed to the sound discretion of the court” (Tag Mech. Sys., Inc. v V.I.P. Structures, Inc., 63 AD3d 1504, 1505 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]). Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendments “are based upon the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the first amended complaint and are not time-barred” (Maxon v Franklin Traffic Serv., 261 AD2d 830, 830 [1999]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.E, Smith, Fahey and Garni, JJ.

Aurora Medical Group, P.C. v. Genewick, 68 A.D.3d 1769, 890 N.Y.2d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 1769 (Aurora Medical Group, P.C. v. Genewick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related