Glorioso v. DeBlasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glorioso v. DeBlasio

227 A.D.2d 588, 643 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6064

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

DecidedMay 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 588 (Glorioso v. DeBlasio) 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

Glorioso v. DeBlasio, 227 A.D.2d 588, 643 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated [589]*589October 26, 1994, which denied his motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add a cause of action for treble damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely given absent prejudice to the opposing party (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; Thailer v LaRocca, 174 AD2d 731), such a motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is totally devoid of merit (see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784). Because the conduct alleged in the proposed amended complaint does not establish a claim for treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Joy and Altman, 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 legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated [589]*589October 26, 1994, which denied his motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add a cause of action for treble damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely given absent prejudice to the opposing party (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; Thailer v LaRocca, 174 AD2d 731), such a motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is totally devoid of merit (see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784). Because the conduct alleged in the proposed amended complaint does not establish a claim for treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 588, 643 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glorioso-v-deblasio-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack