Legal Opinion
Xerox Corp. v. Duminuco
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 9, 1995No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion by granting petitioner leave to serve a consolidated and amended petition. Respondents failed to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice or surprise and, ”[a]bsent prejudice or surprise resulting from delay, motions to amend pleadings should be freely granted” (Ramundo v Town of Guilderland, 108 AD2d 995, 996).
We also conclude that the court’s denial of respondents’ motion seeking disclosure was not an abuse of the broad discretion with which trial courts are vested in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nitz v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Ramundo v. Town of GuilderlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
3Cited by9 opinions
- Town of Pleasant Valley v. New York State Board of Real Property ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Wendy's Restaurants, LLC v. AssessorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Town of Mamakating v. New York State Board of Real Property ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Greens at Washingtonville, Ltd. v. Town of Blooming GroveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Button v. GuererriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.