Weeden v. Corzo Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weeden v. Corzo Construction Co.

240 A.D.2d 732, 660 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113

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

DecidedJune 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 732 (Weeden v. Corzo Construction 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

Weeden v. Corzo Construction Co., 240 A.D.2d 732, 660 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Corzo Construction Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 29, 1996, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the summons and verified complaint to assert a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e.

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

"While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave so as to assert an otherwise apparently meritorious cause of action absent an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice * * * or where the party opposing the motion to serve an amended pleading cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting directly from the delay” (Banfi Prods. Corp. v Gentile, 236 AD2d 348, 349; see also, Roberts v Alexander’s, Inc., 224 AD2d 677, 678). The defendant has not demonstrated how it has suffered significant prejudice as a result of the delay (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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, the defendant Corzo Construction Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 29, 1996, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the summons and verified complaint to assert a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e.

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

"While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave so as to assert an otherwise apparently meritorious cause of action absent an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice * * * or where the party opposing the motion to serve an amended pleading cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting directly from the delay” (Banfi Prods. Corp. v Gentile, 236 AD2d 348, 349; see also, Roberts v Alexander’s, Inc., 224 AD2d 677, 678). The defendant has not demonstrated how it has suffered significant prejudice as a result of the delay (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 732, 660 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeden-v-corzo-construction-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack