Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland

95 A.D.2d 891, 464 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 891 (Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland) 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
Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland, 95 A.D.2d 891, 464 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered November 3, 1982, in Albany County, which granted defendant Town of Guilderland’s motion for permission to amend its answer. In this action, plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Settles Hill Road, a public highway owned and maintained by defendant town. In their notice of claim, served on September 22,1981, plaintiffs allege that defendant town’s negligent maintenance of Settles Hill Road was the proximate cause of the subject accident. A summons and complaint were served on defendant town on February 11,1982, and on or about February 25, 1982, an answer and counterclaim were served. [892]*892Thereafter, defendant town served a third-party complaint. An answer to the third-party complaint was served on July 30, 1982. By motion dated August 11, 1982, defendant town applied, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]), for permission to amend its answer in order to allege the additional defense of failure to provide prior written notice of the alleged defective road condition. Special Term granted this motion and plaintiffs commenced this appeal. A review of the record fails to support plaintiffs’ contention that Special Term abused its discretion by allowing the amendment. Accordingly, the order must be affirmed (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, pars 3025.11, 3025.14). Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sheppard v. Charles A. Smith Well Drilling & Water Systems
102 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.2d 891, 464 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramundo-v-town-of-guilderland-nyappdiv-1983.