Carselli-Kalia v. Sunbeam Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carselli-Kalia v. Sunbeam Corp.

4 A.D.3d 871, 771 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1380

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 871 (Carselli-Kalia v. Sunbeam Corp.) 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

Carselli-Kalia v. Sunbeam Corp., 4 A.D.3d 871, 771 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Edward A. Rath, Jr., J.), entered January 25, 2000. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Although Sunbeam Corporation (defendant) is correct that a separate cause of action for punitive damages does not lie (see Weir Metro Ambu-Service v Turner, 57 NY2d 911 [1982]), here plaintiff sought leave to serve an amended complaint to interpose a cause of action for gross negligence, which included a claim for punitive damages as the relief sought with respect to that cause of action (see Rahn v Carkner, 241 AD2d 585, 586 [1997]). Inasmuch as the proposed amendment does not plainly lack merit and defendant has not argued that it would be prejudiced thereby (see generally Rinker v Oberoi, 275 AD2d 1000 [2000]), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs cross motion seeking, in the alternative, leave to serve an amended complaint (see Letterman v Reddington, 278 AD2d 868 [2000]). Present— Green, J.P, Pine, Wisner, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Edward A. Rath, Jr., J.), entered January 25, 2000. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Although Sunbeam Corporation (defendant) is correct that a separate cause of action for punitive damages does not lie (see Weir Metro Ambu-Service v Turner, 57 NY2d 911 [1982]), here plaintiff sought leave to serve an amended complaint to interpose a cause of action for gross negligence, which included a claim for punitive damages as the relief sought with respect to that cause of action (see Rahn v Carkner, 241 AD2d 585, 586 [1997]). Inasmuch as the proposed amendment does not plainly lack merit and defendant has not argued that it would be prejudiced thereby (see generally Rinker v Oberoi, 275 AD2d 1000 [2000]), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs cross motion seeking, in the alternative, leave to serve an amended complaint (see Letterman v Reddington, 278 AD2d 868 [2000]). Present— Green, J.P, Pine, Wisner, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 871, 771 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carselli-kalia-v-sunbeam-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack