Fitzgerald v. Conroy
57 A.D.3d 939, 869 N.Y.2d 800
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2008·Published
Opinion
Balancing all relevant factors, and under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]; 105 [u]; Thomsen v Suffolk County Police Dept., 50 AD3d 1015, 1016-1017 [2008]; Dialcom, LLC v AT & T Corp., 50 AD3d 727 [2008]). Ritter, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fitzgerald v. Conroy, 57 A.D.3d 939, 869 N.Y.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).
57 A.D.3d 939 (Fitzgerald v. Conroy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dialcom, LLC v. AT & T Corp.
50 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Thomsen v. Suffolk County Police Department
50 A.D.3d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)