Legal Opinion

Mathews v. Visual Thermoforming

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

Decided November 18, 1992No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Prescotech A Company of Tennetics, Inc. to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense. When seeking leave to amend a pleading *965pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), "it is incumbent upon a movant to make 'some evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported’ ” (Mathiesen v Mead, 168 AD2d 736, 737, quoting Cushman & Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133, 135). Here, the motion was supported only by an unsworn document of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mathiesen v. MeadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  2. Bonanni v. Straight Arrow Publishers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. John David, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  4. Santoro v. OppmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Great Lakes Motor Corp. v. JohnsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API