Legal Opinion

Licameli v. Roberts

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

Decided November 13, 2000PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Silvin v. KarwoskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. Ives v. CorreleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Di Matteo v. GreyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  3. Harte v. TrapaniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  4. Su v. Sotheby's Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API