Falk v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falk v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

249 A.D.2d 238, 671 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 238 (Falk v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh) 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

Falk v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 249 A.D.2d 238, 671 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 17, 1996, which, insofar as ap[239]*239pealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint and for modification of a preliminary conference order, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant amendment of the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The proposed amendment, which seeks only to add an additional theory of recovery based upon the facts already alleged, should have been granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, Trusthouse Forte [Garden City] Mgt. v Garden City Hotel, 106 AD2d 271; Rife v Union Coll., 30 AD2d 504, 505). The proposed modification of the preliminary conference order, which seeks an extension of deadlines for plaintiffs disclosure and disclosure from defendants, was properly denied in the absence of any excuse for plaintiffs noncompliance with the present deadlines. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 17, 1996, which, insofar as ap[239]*239pealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint and for modification of a preliminary conference order, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant amendment of the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The proposed amendment, which seeks only to add an additional theory of recovery based upon the facts already alleged, should have been granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, Trusthouse Forte [Garden City] Mgt. v Garden City Hotel, 106 AD2d 271; Rife v Union Coll., 30 AD2d 504, 505). The proposed modification of the preliminary conference order, which seeks an extension of deadlines for plaintiffs disclosure and disclosure from defendants, was properly denied in the absence of any excuse for plaintiffs noncompliance with the present deadlines. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 238, 671 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falk-v-national-union-fire-insurance-co-of-pittsburgh-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack