Pawling Savings Bank v. Village Square Associates
This text of 213 A.D.2d 531 (Pawling Savings Bank v. Village Square Associates) 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.
Opinion
—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Harold Weber and Robert Nilsson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 15, 1993, as denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A motion to amend a pleading is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533). Under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason to set aside the trial court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer (see, Courageous Syndicate v People-To-People Sports Comm., 141 AD2d 599; cf., Noanjo Clothing v L & M Kids Fashions, 207 AD2d 436). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
213 A.D.2d 531, 624 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawling-savings-bank-v-village-square-associates-nyappdiv-1995.