Legal Opinion
Cutwright v. Central Brooklyn Urban Development Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 17, 1987PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant Central Brooklyn Urban Development Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated May 16, 1986, which denied its motion for leave to serve an amended verified answer.
Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended verified answer is deemed served.
As a general rule, motions for leave to serve amended pleadings should be liberally granted unless the rights of the parties are substantially prejudiced (Andersen v…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Murray v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Andersen v. University of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Caruso v. Ted Hoyer & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sassone v. Town of QueensburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Smith v. D.L. Peterson TrustAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Shepherd v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Banfi Products Corp. v. GentileAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- English v. Ski Windham Operating Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.