Canellis v. Gitlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canellis v. Gitlin

280 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 445 (Canellis v. Gitlin) 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

Canellis v. Gitlin, 280 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for trespass, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 13, 2000, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants’ time to serve and file an amended answer is extended until 30 days after the service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). The plaintiff did not allege, let alone demonstrate, that he would suffer any prejudice or surprise if the Supreme Court allowed the amendment (see, Napolitano v DGM-I Corp., 255 AD2d 567; Corsale v Pantry Pride Supermarket, 197 AD2d 659). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, Mc-Ginity and Schmidt, 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 trespass, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 13, 2000, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants’ time to serve and file an amended answer is extended until 30 days after the service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). The plaintiff did not allege, let alone demonstrate, that he would suffer any prejudice or surprise if the Supreme Court allowed the amendment (see, Napolitano v DGM-I Corp., 255 AD2d 567; Corsale v Pantry Pride Supermarket, 197 AD2d 659). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, Mc-Ginity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canellis-v-gitlin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack