Caruso v. Anpro, Ltd.

215 A.D.2d 713, 627 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 713 (Caruso v. Anpro, Ltd.) 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
Caruso v. Anpro, Ltd., 215 A.D.2d 713, 627 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants, Anpro, Ltd. and Marguerite Provenzano appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated September 24, 1993, as denied their cross motion for leave to amend their answers so as to assert certain counterclaims, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss their first, second, and fourth affirmative defenses.

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

While leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (CPLR 3025 Pd]), the decision whether to grant such leave is within the court’s sound discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis (see, Mayers v D’Agostino, 58 NY2d 696). In exercising its discretion, the court will consider how long the amending party was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, and whether a reasonable excuse for the delay is offered (see, Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 AD2d 554, 557).

By order dated April 23, 1991, the court directed the defendant Provenzano to file her answer, defenses, and counterclaims within 20 days of service of the order, and directed the [714]*714defendant Anpro, Ltd. to renew its motion to amend its answer upon obtaining new counsel.

The appellants failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their two-year delay in complying with that order. Moreover, it clear from this record that the appellants were aware of the facts upon which their proposed counterclaims were based, at least as early as October 1990. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion for leave to amend (Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Morand v. Farmers New Century Ins. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 3041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Logan
2019 NY Slip Op 2344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Schelchere v. Halls
120 A.D.3d 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Keating v. Nanuet Board of Education
44 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Cohen v. Ho
38 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Crystal House Manor, Inc. v. Totura
5 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Koeth v. Koeth
309 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Haughton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
305 A.D.2d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Haller v. Lopane
305 A.D.2d 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Dollinger
303 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Crivaro v. Crivaro
295 A.D.2d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Leonardi v. City of New York
294 A.D.2d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Belesi v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
272 A.D.2d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Sidor v. Zuhoski
257 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
EDP Medical Computer Systems, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
255 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Weinstock v. Handler
254 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Romeo v. Arrigo
254 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp.
246 A.D.2d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re Goggins
231 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Slavet v. Horton Memorial Hospital
227 A.D.2d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 713, 627 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-anpro-ltd-nyappdiv-1995.