Tricarico v. B & B Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tricarico v. B & B Equipment Co.

249 A.D.2d 296, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3665

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 296 (Tricarico v. B & B Equipment Co.) 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

Tricarico v. B & B Equipment Co., 249 A.D.2d 296, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant B & B Equipment Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated April 17, 1997, as denied its motion for leave to amend its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the length of the appellant’s delay in moving to amend its answer, its failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiffs, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion (see, Matter of [297]*297Goggins, 231 AD2d 634). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant B & B Equipment Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated April 17, 1997, as denied its motion for leave to amend its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the length of the appellant’s delay in moving to amend its answer, its failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiffs, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion (see, Matter of [297]*297Goggins, 231 AD2d 634). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 296, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tricarico-v-b-b-equipment-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack