Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. El-Kam Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. El-Kam Realty Co.

306 A.D.2d 314, 760 N.Y.S.2d 680

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

DecidedJune 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 314 (Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. El-Kam Realty Co.) 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

Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. El-Kam Realty Co., 306 A.D.2d 314, 760 N.Y.S.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered October 23, 2002, as denied its motion for leave to amend the complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint to add multiple causes of action. While generally leave to [315]*315amend should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]), there must be a proper basis for granting the motion. Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment had merit (see Heckler Elec. Co. v Matrix Exhibits-N.Y., 278 AD2d 279 [2000]; Sharapata v Town of Islip, 82 AD2d 350, 362 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 332 [1982]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered October 23, 2002, as denied its motion for leave to amend the complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint to add multiple causes of action. While generally leave to [315]*315amend should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]), there must be a proper basis for granting the motion. Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment had merit (see Heckler Elec. Co. v Matrix Exhibits-N.Y., 278 AD2d 279 [2000]; Sharapata v Town of Islip, 82 AD2d 350, 362 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 332 [1982]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 314, 760 N.Y.S.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gannett-suburban-newspapers-v-el-kam-realty-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack