Chang v. First American Title Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chang v. First American Title Insurance

20 A.D.3d 502, 799 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 502 (Chang v. First American Title Insurance) 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

Chang v. First American Title Insurance, 20 A.D.3d 502, 799 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated May 21, 2003, as denied her motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint since she did not provide a copy of her proposed amended complaint, and the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient (see Ferdinand v Crecca & Blair, 5 AD3d 538, 540 [2004]; Youckelsone v Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn., 309 AD2d 655 [2003]; Branch v Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store, 220 AD2d 474, 475 [1995]). However, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a sanction on this appeal against the plaintiff is not warranted. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, and fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated May 21, 2003, as denied her motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint since she did not provide a copy of her proposed amended complaint, and the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient (see Ferdinand v Crecca & Blair, 5 AD3d 538, 540 [2004]; Youckelsone v Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn., 309 AD2d 655 [2003]; Branch v Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store, 220 AD2d 474, 475 [1995]). However, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a sanction on this appeal against the plaintiff is not warranted. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 502, 799 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chang-v-first-american-title-insurance-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack