Eifs, Inc. v. Morie Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eifs, Inc. v. Morie Co.

281 A.D.2d 512, 721 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2581

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 29, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given,” absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the amended complaint would result in prejudice or surprise. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 405).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 contract and breach of warranty, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 29, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given,” absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the amended complaint would result in prejudice or surprise. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 405).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Eifs, Inc. v. Morie Co., 281 A.D.2d 512, 721 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 512 (Eifs, Inc. v. Morie Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related