Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.

52 A.D.2d 1028

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

DecidedMay 14, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1028 (Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co.) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

[1030]*1030Order 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]*1030Order 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handley-v-mirro-aluminum-co-nyappdiv-1976.