McKenzie v. Ostreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKenzie v. Ostreich

300 A.D.2d 371, 751 N.Y.S.2d 762

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated January 11, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice resulting from the delay and provided that the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit. Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated January 11, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is granted.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice resulting from the delay and provided that the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit. Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

McKenzie v. Ostreich, 300 A.D.2d 371, 751 N.Y.S.2d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 371 (McKenzie v. Ostreich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related