Postler v. Hassan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Postler v. Hassan

278 A.D.2d 467, 718 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13848

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 467 (Postler v. Hassan) 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

Postler v. Hassan, 278 A.D.2d 467, 718 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to amend their answer.

[468]*468Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the answer is granted, and the amended answer is deemed served.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed amendment was neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934; Bomar v Lane, 265 AD2d 519; Faracy v McGraw Edison Corp., 229 AD2d 463). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to amend their answer.

[468]*468Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the answer is granted, and the amended answer is deemed served.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed amendment was neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934; Bomar v Lane, 265 AD2d 519; Faracy v McGraw Edison Corp., 229 AD2d 463). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 467, 718 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postler-v-hassan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack