Smithtown Health Care Facility v. McCormack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smithtown Health Care Facility v. McCormack

70 A.D.3d 1028, 894 N.Y.S.2d 768

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1028 (Smithtown Health Care Facility v. McCormack) 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

Smithtown Health Care Facility v. McCormack, 70 A.D.3d 1028, 894 N.Y.S.2d 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated March 4, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to preclude it from amending its complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for fraud and/or fraudulent transfer of property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the plaintiffs proof at trial to the only cause of action which it pleaded in its complaint, to wit, an accounting, and in excluding any evidence relating to an alleged fraudulent transfer. The complaint failed to adequately plead or otherwise apprise the defendant of any claim based upon fraud and/or fraudulent transfer (see CPLR 3016 [b]; see also Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 275, 276; Michaelson v Scaduto, 205 AD2d 507 [1994]). Moreover, the plaintiff never moved for leave to amend its complaint and thus, to have, in effect, permitted such an amendment on the eve of trial would have unduly prejudiced the defendant (see generally Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 AD3d 523 [2005]; Sewkarran v DeBellis, 11 AD3d 445 [2004]; cf., Weinstock v Handler, 254 AD2d 165 [1998]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly granted.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated March 4, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to preclude it from amending its complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for fraud and/or fraudulent transfer of property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the plaintiffs proof at trial to the only cause of action which it pleaded in its complaint, to wit, an accounting, and in excluding any evidence relating to an alleged fraudulent transfer. The complaint failed to adequately plead or otherwise apprise the defendant of any claim based upon fraud and/or fraudulent transfer (see CPLR 3016 [b]; see also Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 275, 276; Michaelson v Scaduto, 205 AD2d 507 [1994]). Moreover, the plaintiff never moved for leave to amend its complaint and thus, to have, in effect, permitted such an amendment on the eve of trial would have unduly prejudiced the defendant (see generally Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 AD3d 523 [2005]; Sewkarran v DeBellis, 11 AD3d 445 [2004]; cf., Weinstock v Handler, 254 AD2d 165 [1998]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly granted.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 1028, 894 N.Y.S.2d 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithtown-health-care-facility-v-mccormack-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack