Harry Mayer, Inc. v. Rider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harry Mayer, Inc. v. Rider

248 A.D.2d 1019, 670 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1019 (Harry Mayer, Inc. v. Rider) 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

Harry Mayer, Inc. v. Rider, 248 A.D.2d 1019, 670 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without [1020]*1020costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim. The proposed counterclaim alleges that plaintiff, who sold dairy cattle to defendant, erroneously charged interest on the amount of the purchase price remaining unpaid after 30 days. Defendant alleges that, when the interest and finance charges imposed on his open account for some 17 years are deducted, defendant has in fact overpaid the account. Leave to amend may be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (see, Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v McCabe Elec., 187 AD2d 962).

The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In support of the motion, plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting judgment in its favor, and defendant submitted no evidence in opposition (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without [1020]*1020costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim. The proposed counterclaim alleges that plaintiff, who sold dairy cattle to defendant, erroneously charged interest on the amount of the purchase price remaining unpaid after 30 days. Defendant alleges that, when the interest and finance charges imposed on his open account for some 17 years are deducted, defendant has in fact overpaid the account. Leave to amend may be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (see, Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v McCabe Elec., 187 AD2d 962).

The court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In support of the motion, plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting judgment in its favor, and defendant submitted no evidence in opposition (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1019, 670 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-mayer-inc-v-rider-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack