Weber v. Purow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Purow

89 A.D.3d 728, 931 N.Y.2d 905

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 728 (Weber v. Purow) 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

Weber v. Purow, 89 A.D.3d 728, 931 N.Y.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3025 [b]) and will not be denied unless the amended pleading is palpably insufficient or totally devoid of merit, or unless prejudice or surprise to the opposing party would directly result from the delay in seeking leave to amend (see Jablonski v Jakaitis, 85 AD3d 969, 970-971 [2011]; Young v Estate of Young, 84 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2011]). Inasmuch as none of the foregoing grounds existed here, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contribution and indemnification against the respondents.

The respondents’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3025 [b]) and will not be denied unless the amended pleading is palpably insufficient or totally devoid of merit, or unless prejudice or surprise to the opposing party would directly result from the delay in seeking leave to amend (see Jablonski v Jakaitis, 85 AD3d 969, 970-971 [2011]; Young v Estate of Young, 84 AD3d 1359, 1360 [2011]). Inasmuch as none of the foregoing grounds existed here, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contribution and indemnification against the respondents.

The respondents’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 728, 931 N.Y.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-purow-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack