Warren v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warren v. State

43 A.D.2d 647, 349 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3086

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1973

DocketClaim Nos. 47668 and 47669

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 647 (Warren v. State) 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

Warren v. State, 43 A.D.2d 647, 349 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from orders of the Court of Claims, denying motions by the claimant to amend [648]*648her claims by filing new appraisal reports. Such motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court and rule 25a (22 NYCRR 1200.27 [d] [2]) of the Court of Claims should be strictly construed and enforced unless it is shown that unusual and substantial circumstances would cause undue hardship 'if not remedied (e.g., Baken Realty Gorp. v. State of New York, 37 A D 2d 885, 886). We can find no such basis to disturb the trial court’s discretion in the instant case. It would not only seem that claimant’s attorneys and appraiser were awáre of the allegedly needed changes in the submitted appraisals up .to three months before the appraisals were actually exchanged but that at least some of the allegedly needed adjustments can be. made pursuant to rule 16 which rule 25a did not abrogate (see Mara v. State of New York, 38 A D 2d 789; Beider v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 788, 789). The fact that the State will suffer no detriment and even benefit from the proposed amendment is, of course, not controlling (see Finger v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 655) and the limitation on amendments is clearly not violative of due process (see Beider v. State of New York, supra). Orders affirmed, without costs: Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from orders of the Court of Claims, denying motions by the claimant to amend [648]*648her claims by filing new appraisal reports. Such motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court and rule 25a (22 NYCRR 1200.27 [d] [2]) of the Court of Claims should be strictly construed and enforced unless it is shown that unusual and substantial circumstances would cause undue hardship 'if not remedied (e.g., Baken Realty Gorp. v. State of New York, 37 A D 2d 885, 886). We can find no such basis to disturb the trial court’s discretion in the instant case. It would not only seem that claimant’s attorneys and appraiser were awáre of the allegedly needed changes in the submitted appraisals up .to three months before the appraisals were actually exchanged but that at least some of the allegedly needed adjustments can be. made pursuant to rule 16 which rule 25a did not abrogate (see Mara v. State of New York, 38 A D 2d 789; Beider v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 788, 789). The fact that the State will suffer no detriment and even benefit from the proposed amendment is, of course, not controlling (see Finger v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 655) and the limitation on amendments is clearly not violative of due process (see Beider v. State of New York, supra). Orders affirmed, without costs: Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 647, 349 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-state-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack