Mid-Valley Oil Co. v. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mid-Valley Oil Co. v. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

54 A.D.3d 393, 862 N.Y.S.2d 291

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

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 393 (Mid-Valley Oil Co. v. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.) 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

Mid-Valley Oil Co. v. Hughes Network Systems, Inc., 54 A.D.3d 393, 862 N.Y.S.2d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for common-law and contractual indemnification, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), dated September 8, 2005, which denied its motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Mobil Oil Corporation as a party defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Mobil Oil Corporation (hereinafter Mobil) as a party defendant and to assert causes of action based upon common-law and contractual indemnification against Mobil. While leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]), leave should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit (see Spano v Northwood Tree Care, Inc. 48 AD3d 667 [2008]; Marcus & Co., LLP v Pescitelli, 48 AD3d 646 [2008]; Maciejewski v 975 Park Ave. Corp., 37 AD3d 773, 774 [2007]; Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684-685 [2005]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in making the motion (see Surgical Design Corp. v Correa, 31 [394]*394AD3d 744, 745 [2006]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for common-law and contractual indemnification, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), dated September 8, 2005, which denied its motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Mobil Oil Corporation as a party defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Mobil Oil Corporation (hereinafter Mobil) as a party defendant and to assert causes of action based upon common-law and contractual indemnification against Mobil. While leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]), leave should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit (see Spano v Northwood Tree Care, Inc. 48 AD3d 667 [2008]; Marcus & Co., LLP v Pescitelli, 48 AD3d 646 [2008]; Maciejewski v 975 Park Ave. Corp., 37 AD3d 773, 774 [2007]; Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684-685 [2005]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in making the motion (see Surgical Design Corp. v Correa, 31 [394]*394AD3d 744, 745 [2006]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 393, 862 N.Y.S.2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-valley-oil-co-v-hughes-network-systems-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack