Polow v. Quiros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polow v. Quiros

128 A.D.2d 763, 513 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44449

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 763 (Polow v. Quiros) 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

Polow v. Quiros, 128 A.D.2d 763, 513 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys had and received, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered March 25, 1986, as granted the defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with costs.

[764]*764Based on the facts of this case, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of bankruptcy. This defense was not available to the defendant at the time the original answer was served and it does not appear from the record that the plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by the amendment (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). Moreover, based on these facts, and more particularly the alleged knowledge of the plaintiff as to the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding and his alleged agreement not to be listed as a creditor, the proposed bankruptcy defense is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Norman v Ferrara, 107 AD2d 739, 740; Island Cycle Sales v Khlopin, 126 AD2d 516). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys had and received, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered March 25, 1986, as granted the defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with costs.

[764]*764Based on the facts of this case, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of bankruptcy. This defense was not available to the defendant at the time the original answer was served and it does not appear from the record that the plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by the amendment (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). Moreover, based on these facts, and more particularly the alleged knowledge of the plaintiff as to the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding and his alleged agreement not to be listed as a creditor, the proposed bankruptcy defense is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Norman v Ferrara, 107 AD2d 739, 740; Island Cycle Sales v Khlopin, 126 AD2d 516). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 763, 513 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polow-v-quiros-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack