Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Budoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Budoff

112 A.D.2d 361, 491 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56494

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 361 (Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Budoff) 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

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Budoff, 112 A.D.2d 361, 491 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an injunction and to recover damages for the alleged breach of a covenant not to compete, defendant Seymour Budoff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated March 29, 1985, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of release.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, on condition that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, appellant personally pay the sum of $1,000 to the plaintiffs and serve a copy of his amended answer. In the event the condition is not complied with, then order affirmed, with costs.

Appellant seeks leave to amend his answer to include the affirmative defense of release. He alleges that plaintiffs executed the release on July 31, 1981. This action was commenced on August 13, 1982. If appellant’s defense of release ultimately proves successful, plaintiffs will have unnecessarily expended time and expense preparing for trial, much of which could have been prevented by a more expeditious and timely amendment by appellant. This kind of prejudice is curable through the imposition of costs (Campbell v La Forgia Oil Co., 81 AD2d 824; Ciunci v Wella Corp., 23 AD2d 754). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for an injunction and to recover damages for the alleged breach of a covenant not to compete, defendant Seymour Budoff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated March 29, 1985, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of release.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, on condition that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, appellant personally pay the sum of $1,000 to the plaintiffs and serve a copy of his amended answer. In the event the condition is not complied with, then order affirmed, with costs.

Appellant seeks leave to amend his answer to include the affirmative defense of release. He alleges that plaintiffs executed the release on July 31, 1981. This action was commenced on August 13, 1982. If appellant’s defense of release ultimately proves successful, plaintiffs will have unnecessarily expended time and expense preparing for trial, much of which could have been prevented by a more expeditious and timely amendment by appellant. This kind of prejudice is curable through the imposition of costs (Campbell v La Forgia Oil Co., 81 AD2d 824; Ciunci v Wella Corp., 23 AD2d 754). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 361, 491 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-stevens-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-budoff-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack