Taylor v. Tompkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Tompkins

279 A.D.2d 625, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 854

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 625 (Taylor v. Tompkins) 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

Taylor v. Tompkins, 279 A.D.2d 625, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action alleging legal malpractice against the defendant John C. Sullivan.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision whether or not to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint on the eve of trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Napoli v Canada Dry Bottling Co., 166 AD2d 696). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (see, Prudential Ins. Co. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, 80 NY2d 377; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action alleging legal malpractice against the defendant John C. Sullivan.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision whether or not to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint on the eve of trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Napoli v Canada Dry Bottling Co., 166 AD2d 696). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (see, Prudential Ins. Co. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, 80 NY2d 377; Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 625, 719 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-tompkins-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack