Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel

251 A.D.2d 442, 675 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6874

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 442 (Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel) 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

Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel, 251 A.D.2d 442, 675 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated May 28, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to assert additional causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well established that absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given upon such terms as are just. In addition, the granting of such leave is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and must be determined on a case by case basis (see, CPLR [443]*4433025 [b]; Skinner v Scobbo, 221 AD2d 334). Upon our review of the record, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to assert additional causes of action, while permitting the defendant to conduct additional discovery. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated May 28, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to assert additional causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well established that absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given upon such terms as are just. In addition, the granting of such leave is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and must be determined on a case by case basis (see, CPLR [443]*4433025 [b]; Skinner v Scobbo, 221 AD2d 334). Upon our review of the record, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to assert additional causes of action, while permitting the defendant to conduct additional discovery. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 442, 675 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardozo-v-midway-motor-hotel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack