Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.

52 A.D.2d 1028

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 14, 1976·Published

Opinion

[1030] Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Despite the delay in seeking to amend the complaint, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the application. Plaintiff states a reasonable ground for the amendment. In the amended complaint the same basic facts are alleged as are contained in the original complaint, and defendant does not show that it will be prejudiced thereby. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court —amend complaint.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Mahoney, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

[1030] Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Despite the delay in seeking to amend the complaint, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the application. Plaintiff states a reasonable ground for the amendment. In the amended complaint the same basic facts are alleged as are contained in the original complaint, and defendant does not show that it will be prejudiced thereby. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court —amend complaint.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Mahoney, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co., 52 A.D.2d 1028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

52 A.D.2d 1028 (Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.