K & R Day Trucking, Inc. v. Lore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

K & R Day Trucking, Inc. v. Lore

244 A.D.2d 960, 668 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 960 (K & R Day Trucking, Inc. v. Lore) 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

K & R Day Trucking, Inc. v. Lore, 244 A.D.2d 960, 668 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of defendants to amend their answer to add two affirmative defenses. Although leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given” absent prejudice or surprise (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935), such relief should not be granted where, as here, the proposed amendment manifestly lacks merit or is “ 1 “palpably insufficient on [its] face” ’ ” (Ricci v New Era Cap Co., 224 AD2d 963, 964; Washburn v Citibank [S.D.], 190 AD2d 1057; see, Hanover Ins. Co. v Finnerty, 225 AD2d 1054, 1055). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Amend Pleadings.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of defendants to amend their answer to add two affirmative defenses. Although leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given” absent prejudice or surprise (CPLR 3025 [b]; see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935), such relief should not be granted where, as here, the proposed amendment manifestly lacks merit or is “ 1 “palpably insufficient on [its] face” ’ ” (Ricci v New Era Cap Co., 224 AD2d 963, 964; Washburn v Citibank [S.D.], 190 AD2d 1057; see, Hanover Ins. Co. v Finnerty, 225 AD2d 1054, 1055). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Amend Pleadings.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 960, 668 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-r-day-trucking-inc-v-lore-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack