Dentes v. Wetherell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dentes v. Wetherell

139 A.D.2d 899, 527 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 899 (Dentes v. Wetherell) 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

Dentes v. Wetherell, 139 A.D.2d 899, 527 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: In the absence of prejudice to defendant, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint should have been granted (see, Newton v Aqua Flo Co., 106 AD2d 919). Two of the causes of action plaintiff seeks to add to his amended complaint, however, are patently insufficient and plaintiff should not be permitted to add them (see, De Forte v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD2d 1028). The order appealed from is modified, therefore, by granting plaintiff’s motion to serve the proposed amended complaint after deleting the second and third causes of action for infliction of extreme emotional distress. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — amend complaint.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: In the absence of prejudice to defendant, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint should have been granted (see, Newton v Aqua Flo Co., 106 AD2d 919). Two of the causes of action plaintiff seeks to add to his amended complaint, however, are patently insufficient and plaintiff should not be permitted to add them (see, De Forte v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD2d 1028). The order appealed from is modified, therefore, by granting plaintiff’s motion to serve the proposed amended complaint after deleting the second and third causes of action for infliction of extreme emotional distress. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — amend complaint.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 899, 527 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dentes-v-wetherell-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack