Helene-Harrisson Corp. v. Moneyline Networks, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Helene-Harrisson Corp. v. Moneyline Networks, Inc.

6 A.D.3d 151, 773 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730

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

DecidedApril 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 151 (Helene-Harrisson Corp. v. Moneyline Networks, 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

Helene-Harrisson Corp. v. Moneyline Networks, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 151, 773 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 12, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to amend its answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff landlord demands rent and other damages for the alleged breach of the parties’ lease agreement. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant tenant’s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a defense that plaintiff had unreasonably withheld its consent to subletting the premises. Although permission to amend should ordinarily be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), the movant must make some evidentiary showing that the proposed amendment has arguable merit (Morgan v Prospect Park Assoc. Holdings, 251 AD2d 306 [1998]). The record herein is devoid of evidence that defendant ever expressed interest in subletting the premises, let alone sought plaintiffs permission to do so. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 12, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to amend its answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff landlord demands rent and other damages for the alleged breach of the parties’ lease agreement. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant tenant’s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a defense that plaintiff had unreasonably withheld its consent to subletting the premises. Although permission to amend should ordinarily be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), the movant must make some evidentiary showing that the proposed amendment has arguable merit (Morgan v Prospect Park Assoc. Holdings, 251 AD2d 306 [1998]). The record herein is devoid of evidence that defendant ever expressed interest in subletting the premises, let alone sought plaintiffs permission to do so. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 151, 773 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helene-harrisson-corp-v-moneyline-networks-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack