Yerdon v. Baldwinsville Academy
This text of 39 A.D.2d 824 (Yerdon v. Baldwinsville Academy) 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.
Opinion
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Leave to serve amended bills of particulars and complaints “ in the absence of a showing of prejudice should be freely granted ” (Kerlin v. Green, 36 A D 2d 892). The amendments here sought are not the addition of a new and different cause of action which would prejudice the defendants and the mere lapse of time without more is not sufficient ground for denial of the motion for leave to amend (see Matter of McNally v. Mosbacher, 36 A D 2d 522; Smith v. University of Rochester Med. Center, 32 A D 2d 736). The notice of claim was broad enough to allow a recovery based upon a negligent nonuse of gym mats. Although the court’s power to grant amendments to notices of claim (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd. 6) may not be as broad as its power to grant amendments to pleadings (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]), the motion to amend merely sought to allege more specifically an act of negligence and should have been allowed (see Matter of Powell v. Town of Gates, 36 A D 2d 220). (Appeal from parts of order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion to amend complaint and for other relief.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
39 A.D.2d 824, 333 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yerdon-v-baldwinsville-academy-nyappdiv-1972.