Licameli v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Licameli v. Roberts

277 A.D.2d 1057, 715 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1057 (Licameli v. Roberts) 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

Licameli v. Roberts, 277 A.D.2d 1057, 715 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted in the absence of surprise or prejudice (see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712, 713), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to provide an explanation for the lengthy delay in asserting the claim (see, Ives v Correll, 211 AD2d 899, 900) and, in addition, defendant established that he would be prejudiced by the amendment in view of the fact that discovery is complete and a note of issue has been filed (cf., Silvin v Karwoski, 242 AD2d 945). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Amend Pleading.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted in the absence of surprise or prejudice (see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712, 713), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to provide an explanation for the lengthy delay in asserting the claim (see, Ives v Correll, 211 AD2d 899, 900) and, in addition, defendant established that he would be prejudiced by the amendment in view of the fact that discovery is complete and a note of issue has been filed (cf., Silvin v Karwoski, 242 AD2d 945). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Amend Pleading.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1057, 715 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licameli-v-roberts-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack