Leslie v. Hymes

60 A.D.2d 564, 400 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14494
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 564 (Leslie v. Hymes) 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
Leslie v. Hymes, 60 A.D.2d 564, 400 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 11, 1977, which denied defendant’s motion to amend his answer, is unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, without costs and without disbursements. In this action for alleged malpractice and fraudulent breach of contract stemming from a surgical procedure performed on plaintiff Jerry Leslie in July, 1969, defendant alleging "inadvertence and oversight” moved in December, 1976 to amend his answer to affirmatively plead the Statute of Limitations. The motion was denied by order of January 7, 1977, without prejudice to renewal upon a showing by defendant of the date of service of summons and complaint and a justifiable excuse for delay in so moving. Although defendant’s motion papers filed in January, 1977 upon the renewal motion failed to set forth the information as to service required by the previous order or a justifiable excuse other than "oversight”, nevertheless, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application. The policy of the courts of this State is to "freely” grant leave to amend a pleading "at any time” (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Albany Crane Serv. v Pettibone Mulliken Corp., 54 AD2d 794) in the absence of a showing of prejudice. The burden is upon the party opposing the motion to show prejudice (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025, pp 476-478). While the delay in moving was lengthy, the litigation was still in the pretrial stage. Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating prejudice. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Markewich, JJ.

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

Related

1946Tremont1B, LLC v. Nawal Realty, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 01115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
American Express Natl. Bank v. Kokolli
2024 NY Slip Op 24327 (NYC Civil Court, Bronx, 2024)
M.A. Angeliades, Inc. v. Hill International, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Colon v. Citicorp Investment Services
283 A.D.2d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Riverbay Corp. v. Steiner
144 Misc. 2d 530 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Tankers International Navigation Corp. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp.
116 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Arbutina v. Bahuleyan
75 A.D.2d 84 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.2d 564, 400 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leslie-v-hymes-nyappdiv-1977.