Olewnik v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olewnik v. Bernstein

212 A.D.2d 982, 623 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1846

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to amend the answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), based on the amended answer. Defendant’s motion was brought almost four years after commencement of the action. We conclude, under the circumstances, that granting the motion to amend the answer was an abuse of discretion (see, CPLR 3025). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Amend Answer.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to amend the answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), based on the amended answer. Defendant’s motion was brought almost four years after commencement of the action. We conclude, under the circumstances, that granting the motion to amend the answer was an abuse of discretion (see, CPLR 3025). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Amend Answer.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Olewnik v. Bernstein, 212 A.D.2d 982, 623 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 982 (Olewnik v. Bernstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related