Everything Discount, Inc. v. Graham Raflico Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Everything Discount, Inc. v. Graham Raflico Associates, Inc.

202 A.D.2d 389, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1925

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 389 (Everything Discount, Inc. v. Graham Raflico Associates, Inc.) 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

Everything Discount, Inc. v. Graham Raflico Associates, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 389, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for damage to property and loss of business, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated January 17, 1992, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to include demands for punitive damages. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the amended complaint does not improperly set forth independent causes of action for punitive damages (see, Laufer v Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin, 143 AD2d 732, 734; cf., Tate v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 186 AD2d 859; Fiesel v Nanuet Props. Corp., 125 AD2d 292). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for damage to property and loss of business, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated January 17, 1992, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to include demands for punitive damages. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the amended complaint does not improperly set forth independent causes of action for punitive damages (see, Laufer v Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin, 143 AD2d 732, 734; cf., Tate v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 186 AD2d 859; Fiesel v Nanuet Props. Corp., 125 AD2d 292). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 389, 609 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everything-discount-inc-v-graham-raflico-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack