J.B. Stauffer Construction Co. v. Mailloux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J.B. Stauffer Construction Co. v. Mailloux

35 A.D.3d 1207, 825 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1207 (J.B. Stauffer Construction Co. v. Mailloux) 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

J.B. Stauffer Construction Co. v. Mailloux, 35 A.D.3d 1207, 825 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Thomas J. Murphy, J), entered October 31, 2005 in a breach of contract action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for an account stated.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for an account stated, particularly in view of plaintiffs failure to present a satisfactory excuse for the delay in asserting that proposed cause of action and the prejudice to defendant if the court granted that part of the cross motion (see Thibeault v Palma, 266 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Thomas J. Murphy, J), entered October 31, 2005 in a breach of contract action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for an account stated.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for an account stated, particularly in view of plaintiffs failure to present a satisfactory excuse for the delay in asserting that proposed cause of action and the prejudice to defendant if the court granted that part of the cross motion (see Thibeault v Palma, 266 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1207, 825 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jb-stauffer-construction-co-v-mailloux-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack