Bomar v. Lane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bomar v. Lane

265 A.D.2d 519, 698 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1999·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 3, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to interpose four counterclaims.

Order that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to interpose certain counterclaims. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed counterclaims are neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405; Alejandro v Riportella, 250 AD2d 556, 557; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484; see also, Bay Ridge Lbr. Co. v Groenendaal, 175 AD2d 94; Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667; Puro Filter Corp. v Trembley, 266 App Div 750). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 3, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to interpose four counterclaims.

Order that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to interpose certain counterclaims. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed counterclaims are neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405; Alejandro v Riportella, 250 AD2d 556, 557; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484; see also, Bay Ridge Lbr. Co. v Groenendaal, 175 AD2d 94; Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667; Puro Filter Corp. v Trembley, 266 App Div 750). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Bomar v. Lane, 265 A.D.2d 519, 698 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 519 (Bomar v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related