McKay v. Ciani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKay v. Ciani

267 A.D.2d 581, 698 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12462

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Caruso, J.), entered September 15, 1998 in Schenectady County, which denied de[582] fendant Joseph Ciani’s motion to amend his answer to assert affirmative defenses.

We agree with the rationale expressed by Supreme Court in determining the motion and add merely that leave to amend is not to be granted where the only merit shown, as here, is that the proposed amendment “flows logically from the facts of [the] case” (Marpe v Dolmetsch, 246 AD2d 723, 724).

Cardona, P. J., MikoII, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Caruso, J.), entered September 15, 1998 in Schenectady County, which denied de[582] fendant Joseph Ciani’s motion to amend his answer to assert affirmative defenses.

We agree with the rationale expressed by Supreme Court in determining the motion and add merely that leave to amend is not to be granted where the only merit shown, as here, is that the proposed amendment “flows logically from the facts of [the] case” (Marpe v Dolmetsch, 246 AD2d 723, 724).

Cardona, P. J., MikoII, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

McKay v. Ciani, 267 A.D.2d 581, 698 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 581 (McKay v. Ciani) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related