Kowalski v. Gredzicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kowalski v. Gredzicki

197 A.D.2d 872, 604 N.Y.S.2d 871

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his pleading * * * at any time by leave of court * * * Leave shall be freely given” (emphasis added). In view of defendants’ failure to show actual prejudice resulting from the proposed amendments, plaintiffs’ motion should have been granted (see, Loomis v Corrino Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24; Brewster v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 185 AD2d 653). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—Amended Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his pleading * * * at any time by leave of court * * * Leave shall be freely given” (emphasis added). In view of defendants’ failure to show actual prejudice resulting from the proposed amendments, plaintiffs’ motion should have been granted (see, Loomis v Corrino Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24; Brewster v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 185 AD2d 653). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—Amended Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Kowalski v. Gredzicki, 197 A.D.2d 872, 604 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

197 A.D.2d 872 (Kowalski v. Gredzicki) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related