Ferguson v. Kane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferguson v. Kane

155 A.D.2d 903

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 903 (Ferguson v. Kane) 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

Ferguson v. Kane, 155 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and plaintiff’s motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint containing an additional derivative claim on behalf of the father of the infant plaintiff. Since the original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading, the father’s additional derivative claim is not time barred (see, CPLR 203 [e]; Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245; O’Connor v West, 124 AD2d [904]*9041050; Rivera v St. Luke’s Hosp., 102 Misc 2d 727). Moreover, defendants have not established that they would suffer prejudice if the amended derivative claim is permitted (see, Rutz v Kellum, 144 AD2d 1017). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — amend complaint.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and plaintiff’s motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint containing an additional derivative claim on behalf of the father of the infant plaintiff. Since the original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading, the father’s additional derivative claim is not time barred (see, CPLR 203 [e]; Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245; O’Connor v West, 124 AD2d [904]*9041050; Rivera v St. Luke’s Hosp., 102 Misc 2d 727). Moreover, defendants have not established that they would suffer prejudice if the amended derivative claim is permitted (see, Rutz v Kellum, 144 AD2d 1017). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — amend complaint.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-kane-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack