Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

93 A.D.2d 998, 461 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17919

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

DecidedApril 1, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 998 (Kenford Co. v. County of Erie) 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

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 93 A.D.2d 998, 461 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We see no abuse of discretion in the order granting plaintiffs leave to amend the ad damnum clause. Leave to amend the ad damnum clause “should generally be granted” in the absence of prejudice to defendant (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23). “Prejudice, of course, is not found in the mere exposure of the defendant to greater liability. Instead, there must be some indication that the defendant has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of his position” (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., supra, p 23; see Stornelli v Aakron Rule Corp., 89 AD2d 1060). We reject defendants’ argument that their pretrial discovery will be nullified by the amendment. Since the elements of damage remain the same, defendants’ preparation for trial will be the same now as it was before. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. — amend ad damnum clause.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We see no abuse of discretion in the order granting plaintiffs leave to amend the ad damnum clause. Leave to amend the ad damnum clause “should generally be granted” in the absence of prejudice to defendant (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23). “Prejudice, of course, is not found in the mere exposure of the defendant to greater liability. Instead, there must be some indication that the defendant has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of his position” (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., supra, p 23; see Stornelli v Aakron Rule Corp., 89 AD2d 1060). We reject defendants’ argument that their pretrial discovery will be nullified by the amendment. Since the elements of damage remain the same, defendants’ preparation for trial will be the same now as it was before. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. — amend ad damnum clause.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 998, 461 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenford-co-v-county-of-erie-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack