Gesing v. Fadale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gesing v. Fadale

145 A.D.2d 978, 536 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14072

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 978 (Gesing v. Fadale) 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

Gesing v. Fadale, 145 A.D.2d 978, 536 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to serve an amended complaint seeking to add allegations of willful misconduct and a demand for punitive damages. Absence of insurance coverage for such claim does not constitute prejudice warranting denial of a motion to amend under CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Dooley v Bacardi Imports, 98 AD2d 993). Plaintiff consents to striking its note of issue, so there is no merit to defendants’ contention, that they have been deprived of an opportunity to conduct discovery on the new issue raised by the proposed amendment. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — amend complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to serve an amended complaint seeking to add allegations of willful misconduct and a demand for punitive damages. Absence of insurance coverage for such claim does not constitute prejudice warranting denial of a motion to amend under CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Dooley v Bacardi Imports, 98 AD2d 993). Plaintiff consents to striking its note of issue, so there is no merit to defendants’ contention, that they have been deprived of an opportunity to conduct discovery on the new issue raised by the proposed amendment. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — amend complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 978, 536 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gesing-v-fadale-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack