Scicchitano v. Emerton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scicchitano v. Emerton

95 A.D.2d 882, 464 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18844

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

DecidedJune 2, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 882 (Scicchitano v. Emerton) 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

Scicchitano v. Emerton, 95 A.D.2d 882, 464 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Viscardi, J.), entered September 29, 1982 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve an amended complaint. This action was commenced to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when her motor vehicle collided with an automobile owned and operated by defendant. Issue was joined in January, 1981, and thereafter in June, 1981, plaintiff filed a note of issue. By notice of motion dated August 6, 1982, plaintiff made a motion, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) for permission to serve an amended complaint adding allegations of willful, wanton and intoxicated conduct, and seeking punitive damages. Special Term granted the motion and this appeal ensued. The determination of a motion to amend rests within the sound discretion of Special Term (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3025.11; see, also, Stewart v West Bradford Corp., 88 AD2d 1100). Since a review of the instant record fails to reveal that Special Term abused its discretion, the order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Viscardi, J.), entered September 29, 1982 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve an amended complaint. This action was commenced to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when her motor vehicle collided with an automobile owned and operated by defendant. Issue was joined in January, 1981, and thereafter in June, 1981, plaintiff filed a note of issue. By notice of motion dated August 6, 1982, plaintiff made a motion, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) for permission to serve an amended complaint adding allegations of willful, wanton and intoxicated conduct, and seeking punitive damages. Special Term granted the motion and this appeal ensued. The determination of a motion to amend rests within the sound discretion of Special Term (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3025.11; see, also, Stewart v West Bradford Corp., 88 AD2d 1100). Since a review of the instant record fails to reveal that Special Term abused its discretion, the order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 882, 464 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scicchitano-v-emerton-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack