Leiva v. Marietta Trucking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leiva v. Marietta Trucking Corp.

272 A.D.2d 209, 708 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5639

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 18, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add a demand for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend (see, Pchelka v Loomis-Root, Inc., 210 AD2d 889), since plaintiff’s proposed amendment was not “plainly lacking in merit” (Rahn v Carkner, 241 AD2d 585, 586). Defendants-appellants were not impermissibly prejudiced by the amendment, since they had not changed position materially or given up a right in reliance on the unamended complaint (see, U.S. Cablevision Corp. v Theodoreu, 192 AD2d 835, 837). This, moreover, is not a situation in which the party seeking leave to amend knowingly slept on his or her rights (cf., Balport Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 134 AD2d 309, 312). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add a demand for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend (see, Pchelka v Loomis-Root, Inc., 210 AD2d 889), since plaintiff’s proposed amendment was not “plainly lacking in merit” (Rahn v Carkner, 241 AD2d 585, 586). Defendants-appellants were not impermissibly prejudiced by the amendment, since they had not changed position materially or given up a right in reliance on the unamended complaint (see, U.S. Cablevision Corp. v Theodoreu, 192 AD2d 835, 837). This, moreover, is not a situation in which the party seeking leave to amend knowingly slept on his or her rights (cf., Balport Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 134 AD2d 309, 312). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Leiva v. Marietta Trucking Corp., 272 A.D.2d 209, 708 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 209 (Leiva v. Marietta Trucking Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related