Mathews v. Visual Thermoforming
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Mathiesen v. MeadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Bonanni v. Straight Arrow Publishers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. John David, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Santoro v. OppmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
3Cited by1 opinion
- Great Lakes Motor Corp. v. JohnsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017