Carducci v. Bensimon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carducci v. Bensimon

115 A.D.3d 693, 981 N.Y.S.2d 597

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 693 (Carducci v. Bensimon) 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

Carducci v. Bensimon, 115 A.D.3d 693, 981 N.Y.S.2d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, [694]*694inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered March 23, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Abbe Sohne Bensimon for leave to amend her answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant Abbe Sohne Bensimon for leave to amend her answer, as the proposed amended answer did not result in any prejudice or surprise and was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; HSBC Bank v Picarelli, 110 AD3d 1031 [2013]; Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d 731 [2012]).

Mastro, J.P, Cohen, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, [694]*694inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered March 23, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Abbe Sohne Bensimon for leave to amend her answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant Abbe Sohne Bensimon for leave to amend her answer, as the proposed amended answer did not result in any prejudice or surprise and was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; HSBC Bank v Picarelli, 110 AD3d 1031 [2013]; Maldonado v Newport Gardens, Inc., 91 AD3d 731 [2012]).

Mastro, J.P, Cohen, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 693, 981 N.Y.S.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carducci-v-bensimon-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack