Laplante v. Laplante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laplante v. Laplante

70 A.D.3d 1039, 894 N.Y.S.2d 775

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1039 (Laplante v. Laplante) 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

Laplante v. Laplante, 70 A.D.3d 1039, 894 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated April 16, 2009, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the Family Court should have amended his petition sua sponte to include an allegation that the respondent slapped him. A pleading may be amended to conform to the proof, unless the amendment would prejudice the opposing party (see CPLR 3025 [c]). Here, such an amendment would have prejudiced the respondent because, without notice of the factual allegation, she could not prepare her case. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ, concur.

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

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated April 16, 2009, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the Family Court should have amended his petition sua sponte to include an allegation that the respondent slapped him. A pleading may be amended to conform to the proof, unless the amendment would prejudice the opposing party (see CPLR 3025 [c]). Here, such an amendment would have prejudiced the respondent because, without notice of the factual allegation, she could not prepare her case. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 1039, 894 N.Y.S.2d 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laplante-v-laplante-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack