Sarro v. Sarro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarro v. Sarro

238 A.D.2d 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 330 (Sarro v. Sarro) 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

Sarro v. Sarro, 238 A.D.2d 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Marrero, J.), dated March 11, 1996, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given unless the party opposing the motion can demon[331]*331strate prejudice or surprise from a delay (see, Corsale v Pantry Pride Supermarket, 197 AD2d 659; Evans v Kringstein, 193 AD2d 714). The defendant has failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Marrero, J.), dated March 11, 1996, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given unless the party opposing the motion can demon[331]*331strate prejudice or surprise from a delay (see, Corsale v Pantry Pride Supermarket, 197 AD2d 659; Evans v Kringstein, 193 AD2d 714). The defendant has failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarro-v-sarro-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack