Licameli v. Roberts
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted in the absence of surprise or prejudice (see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712, 713), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to provide an explanation for the lengthy delay in asserting the claim (see, Ives v Correll, 211 AD2d 899, 900) and, in addition, defendant established that he would be prejudiced by the amendment…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Silvin v. KarwoskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Ives v. CorreleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by4 opinions
- Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Di Matteo v. GreyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Harte v. TrapaniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Su v. Sotheby's Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2024