Poughkeepsie Iron Fabricators, Inc. v. 515 Seventh Associates
158 A.D.2d 404, 551 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1853
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[405] While ordinarily leave to amend pleadings should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise to the adverse party, we find no abuse of the IAS court’s discretion in denying such leave. Far from being adverse parties, Poughkeepsie and Robico had cooperated as coplaintiffs for almost 18 months. Under the circumstances, the surprise and prejudice to Robico is self-evident. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Poughkeepsie Iron Fabricators, Inc. v. 515 Seventh Associates, 158 A.D.2d 404, 551 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).
158 A.D.2d 404 (Poughkeepsie Iron Fabricators, Inc. v. 515 Seventh Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. Story
241 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)