Legal Opinion

Milkis v. Condominium Lloyd 54 Condominium

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 10, 2009Published

1Opinion of the Court

*57OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order, entered February 25, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ belated motion to amend their answer. Although permission to amend should ordinarily be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), the movant must make some evidentiary showing that the proposed amendment has arguable merit (see HeleneHarrisson Corp. v Moneyline Networks, 6 AD3d 151 [2004]). The proposed counterclaims advanced by defendants herein assert that the plaintiff mother failed to adequately “interfere with” — or, perhaps more properly, to take steps…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holodook v. SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Alharb v. SayeghAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  3. Cooper v. County of RensselaerNew York Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Helene-Harrisson Corp. v. Moneyline Networks, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API