Fidelity Holdings, Inc. v. Marom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fidelity Holdings, Inc. v. Marom

276 A.D.2d 468, 713 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 18, 1999, as granted those branches of the defendants’ cross motion which were for leave to amend their answer and to interpose ten counterclaims, four of which included demands for punitive damages.

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

The defendants cross-moved for leave to amend their answer and to interpose eleven counterclaims, of which the fourth, sixth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh included demands for punitive damages. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the cross motion which were for leave to amend the answer and to interpose ten of those counterclaims, specifically the first through the fifth and the seventh through the eleventh. In the absence of surprise or prejudice resulting from the delay, leave to aiiiend pleadings shall be given freely (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755; Ava & Co. v Olympic Tower Assocs., 259 AD2d 315). In addition, the proposed fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh counterclaims sufficiently set forth claims for punitive damages (see, Suffolk Sports Ctr. v Belli Constr. Corp., 212 AD2d 241; Werner, Zarof, Slotnick, Stern & Askenazy v Lewis, 155 Misc 2d 558).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity 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, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 18, 1999, as granted those branches of the defendants’ cross motion which were for leave to amend their answer and to interpose ten counterclaims, four of which included demands for punitive damages.

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

The defendants cross-moved for leave to amend their answer and to interpose eleven counterclaims, of which the fourth, sixth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh included demands for punitive damages. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the cross motion which were for leave to amend the answer and to interpose ten of those counterclaims, specifically the first through the fifth and the seventh through the eleventh. In the absence of surprise or prejudice resulting from the delay, leave to aiiiend pleadings shall be given freely (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755; Ava & Co. v Olympic Tower Assocs., 259 AD2d 315). In addition, the proposed fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh counterclaims sufficiently set forth claims for punitive damages (see, Suffolk Sports Ctr. v Belli Constr. Corp., 212 AD2d 241; Werner, Zarof, Slotnick, Stern & Askenazy v Lewis, 155 Misc 2d 558).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Fidelity Holdings, Inc. v. Marom, 276 A.D.2d 468, 713 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 468 (Fidelity Holdings, Inc. v. Marom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related