Estate of Peter Horan v. Town of Smith-town

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Peter Horan v. Town of Smith-town

282 A.D.2d 498, 722 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 498 (Estate of Peter Horan v. Town of Smith-town) 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

Estate of Peter Horan v. Town of Smith-town, 282 A.D.2d 498, 722 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the residential zoning classification of the plaintiffs property is unconstitutional and illegal, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated December 23, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint asserting additional factual allegations and two new causes of action (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; CPLR 3025 [b]). The proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the allegations which must be proven by the plaintiff or diminish the defenses available to the defendants (see, Nassi v DiLemme Constr. Corp., 250 AD2d 658). Moreover, the defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice or surprise as a result of the delay (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934; Kalish v Manhasset Med. Ctr. Hosp., 100 AD2d 507). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the residential zoning classification of the plaintiffs property is unconstitutional and illegal, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated December 23, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint asserting additional factual allegations and two new causes of action (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; CPLR 3025 [b]). The proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the allegations which must be proven by the plaintiff or diminish the defenses available to the defendants (see, Nassi v DiLemme Constr. Corp., 250 AD2d 658). Moreover, the defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice or surprise as a result of the delay (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934; Kalish v Manhasset Med. Ctr. Hosp., 100 AD2d 507). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 498, 722 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-peter-horan-v-town-of-smith-town-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack