Sheldon Electric Co. v. Oriental Boulevard Corp.

56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 886 (Sheldon Electric Co. v. Oriental Boulevard Corp.) 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
Sheldon Electric Co. v. Oriental Boulevard Corp., 56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover a balance due for work, labor and services, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November '9, 1976, which denied their motion for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the counterclaim pleaded in their answer. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, payable by plaintiff, and motion granted. The plaintiff may, if it be so advised, conduct further oral examination of defendants with respect to the additional items of damage claimed, which examination shall proceed at such time and place as shall be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. The time within which such notice must be served is extended until 10 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in [887]*887denying defendants’ motion. The damages sustained could result in a recovery in excess of that originally demanded in the counterclaim. That counterclaim contemplated a possible increase in the amount of damages claimed; this was reflected in defendants’ bill of particulars, which specified that the full extent of the damages being suffered by them was not yet ascertainable because of the continuing nature of the damage. The policy of our courts is to liberally permit amendments of pleadings unless the rights of a party are substantially prejudiced (see Mitchell v City of New York, 44 AD2d 852). No such prejudice appears here. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Frederic v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital
100 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Sharapata v. Town of Islip
82 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Karras v. County of Westchester
71 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Wylie v. County of Suffolk
65 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A.D.2d 886, 392 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldon-electric-co-v-oriental-boulevard-corp-nyappdiv-1977.