Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.

260 A.D.2d 601, 688 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4306

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 601 (Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.) 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

Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 601, 688 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J-), dated June 11, 1998, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add a fourth counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the length of the defendants’ delay in moving to amend their answer, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiff, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion (see, Tricarico v B & B Equip. Co., 249 AD2d 296; Matter of Goggins, 231 AD2d 634). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Mc-Ginity, 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 an employment agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J-), dated June 11, 1998, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add a fourth counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the length of the defendants’ delay in moving to amend their answer, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiff, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion (see, Tricarico v B & B Equip. Co., 249 AD2d 296; Matter of Goggins, 231 AD2d 634). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 601, 688 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenstone-roberts-advertising-inc-v-bernard-hodes-advertising-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack