Goldmills Farms, Inc. v. Senk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldmills Farms, Inc. v. Senk

129 A.D.2d 556, 514 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45226

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

DecidedApril 6, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 556 (Goldmills Farms, Inc. v. Senk) 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

Goldmills Farms, Inc. v. Senk, 129 A.D.2d 556, 514 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered April 22, 1986, which denied its motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiffs attempt on the eve of trial to introduce new facts to support a new theory of recovery and the inexcusable delay in seeking to introduce this new claim after the plaintiff had previously filed its note of issue, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, 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 veterinary malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered April 22, 1986, which denied its motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiffs attempt on the eve of trial to introduce new facts to support a new theory of recovery and the inexcusable delay in seeking to introduce this new claim after the plaintiff had previously filed its note of issue, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 556, 514 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldmills-farms-inc-v-senk-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack