Quirk v. Lawler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quirk v. Lawler

85 A.D.2d 597, 449 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16404

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 597 (Quirk v. Lawler) 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

Quirk v. Lawler, 85 A.D.2d 597, 449 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gagliardi, J.), dated October 6, 1980, that granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, which included an increase in the ad damnum clause. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although plaintiff has failed to offer a justifiable excuse for his delay in seeking this amendment, defendants have not demonstrated that they will suffer any prejudice because of the amendment. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gagliardi, J.), dated October 6, 1980, that granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, which included an increase in the ad damnum clause. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although plaintiff has failed to offer a justifiable excuse for his delay in seeking this amendment, defendants have not demonstrated that they will suffer any prejudice because of the amendment. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 597, 449 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quirk-v-lawler-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack