NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

167 A.D.2d 301, 562 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14063

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 301 (NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 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

NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 167 A.D.2d 301, 562 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered on March 2, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve a second amended complaint and petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although, as plaintiff correctly notes, CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend a complaint shall be freely granted [302]*302(Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957), nevertheless, this court has held that leave to amend a complaint is not granted upon mere request without a proper showing. Rather, in determining whether to grant leave to amend, a court must examine the underlying merit of the causes of action asserted therein, since, to do otherwise would be wasteful of judicial resources. (Brennan v City of New York, 99 AD2d 445; East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432.)

With this in mind, we find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs proposed amendment as legally insufficient. On a prior appeal (NAB Constr. Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 148 AD2d 1020, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 841), this court rejected the cause of action now sought to be added, seeking a declaratory judgment that the alternate dispute resolution procedure in the parties’ contract was invalid and against public policy under the New York Court of Appeals decision in Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York (74 NY2d 166). We perceive no basis for reexamining our prior determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered on March 2, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve a second amended complaint and petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although, as plaintiff correctly notes, CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend a complaint shall be freely granted [302]*302(Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957), nevertheless, this court has held that leave to amend a complaint is not granted upon mere request without a proper showing. Rather, in determining whether to grant leave to amend, a court must examine the underlying merit of the causes of action asserted therein, since, to do otherwise would be wasteful of judicial resources. (Brennan v City of New York, 99 AD2d 445; East Asiatic Co. v Corash, 34 AD2d 432.)

With this in mind, we find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs proposed amendment as legally insufficient. On a prior appeal (NAB Constr. Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 148 AD2d 1020, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 841), this court rejected the cause of action now sought to be added, seeking a declaratory judgment that the alternate dispute resolution procedure in the parties’ contract was invalid and against public policy under the New York Court of Appeals decision in Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York (74 NY2d 166). We perceive no basis for reexamining our prior determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 301, 562 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nab-construction-corp-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack