Barnes Coy Architects, P.C. v. Shamoon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes Coy Architects, P.C. v. Shamoon

53 A.D.3d 466, 863 N.Y.S.2d 216

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 466 (Barnes Coy Architects, P.C. v. Shamoon) 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

Barnes Coy Architects, P.C. v. Shamoon, 53 A.D.3d 466, 863 N.Y.S.2d 216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 25, 2008, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract is granted, and the amended complaint attached to the motion papers is deemed served.

[467]*467In the original complaint, the plaintiff asserted, inter alia, a cause of action to recover damages for breach of an “Architect Agreement.” Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to that cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion, as the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the defendants (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Lynch v Lynch, 47 AD3d 771, 772 [2008]; see also Bennett v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 51 AJD3d 959 [2008]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2008], lv granted 2008 NY Slip Op 68750[U] [2d Dept 2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 25, 2008, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract is granted, and the amended complaint attached to the motion papers is deemed served.

[467]*467In the original complaint, the plaintiff asserted, inter alia, a cause of action to recover damages for breach of an “Architect Agreement.” Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to that cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion, as the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the defendants (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Lynch v Lynch, 47 AD3d 771, 772 [2008]; see also Bennett v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 51 AJD3d 959 [2008]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2008], lv granted 2008 NY Slip Op 68750[U] [2d Dept 2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 466, 863 N.Y.S.2d 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-coy-architects-pc-v-shamoon-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack