Murdock v. Avis Rent A Car System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murdock v. Avis Rent A Car System

196 A.D.2d 859, 603 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8773

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.D.2d 859 (Murdock v. Avis Rent A Car System) 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

Murdock v. Avis Rent A Car System, 196 A.D.2d 859, 603 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover [860]*860damages for false arrest and false imprisonment, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated June 6, 1991, which denied its motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in making the motion and was previously aware of the facts of its proposed counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the amendment because discovery had been completed and amendment of the answer would result in additional discovery and pretrial proceedings which would delay the trial (see, Wise v Greenwald, 194 AD2d 850; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533; Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 AD2d 554). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover [860]*860damages for false arrest and false imprisonment, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated June 6, 1991, which denied its motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in making the motion and was previously aware of the facts of its proposed counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the amendment because discovery had been completed and amendment of the answer would result in additional discovery and pretrial proceedings which would delay the trial (see, Wise v Greenwald, 194 AD2d 850; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533; Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 AD2d 554). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 859, 603 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-avis-rent-a-car-system-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack