Legal Opinion
Foley v. Buffalo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 11, 1994PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s cross motion, made practically on the eve of trial, for leave to serve an amended complaint. Although leave is to be "freely given” (CPLR 3025 [b]), it should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment "plainly lacks merit” (Mathiesen v Mead, 168 AD2d 736). Plaintiff may not recover for injuries resulting from the special risks inherent in the duties he was engaged to perform as a firefighter (see, Cooper v City of New York, 81 NY2d 584; Santangelo v State of New…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Santangelo v. State of NYNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Kenavan v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Cooper v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Mathiesen v. MeadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- F.G.L. Knitting Mills, Inc. v. 1087 Flushing Property, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- A.R. Mack Construction Co. v. Patricia Electric, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004