Fucci v. Shellfish, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fucci v. Shellfish, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 280, 715 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11783

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered September 16, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to amend the summons and complaint to add it as a defendant, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to amend the summons and complaint to add the appellant as a defendant and substituting therefor a provi[281] sion denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Motions for leave to amend pleadings are to be liberally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. However, where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied (see, Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484). Under the facts of this case, the plaintiff expressly waived his right to bring a claim under the Jones Act (see, 46 USC 688), and therefore, the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 113; Matter of Braadt v City of New York, 15 NY2d 875; Matter of Ahern v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 303 NY 545, affd 344 US 367; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., supra).

The third-party defendant’s remaining contention is academic in light of the foregoing. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, 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 personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered September 16, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to amend the summons and complaint to add it as a defendant, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to amend the summons and complaint to add the appellant as a defendant and substituting therefor a provi[281] sion denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Motions for leave to amend pleadings are to be liberally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. However, where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied (see, Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484). Under the facts of this case, the plaintiff expressly waived his right to bring a claim under the Jones Act (see, 46 USC 688), and therefore, the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 113; Matter of Braadt v City of New York, 15 NY2d 875; Matter of Ahern v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 303 NY 545, affd 344 US 367; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., supra).

The third-party defendant’s remaining contention is academic in light of the foregoing. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Fucci v. Shellfish, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 280, 715 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 280 (Fucci v. Shellfish, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related