Legal Opinion
Rogers v. South Slope Holding Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 13, 1998PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend the complaint (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934). Where, as here, the proposed amendment does not set forth new facts, but merely adds an additional theory of recovery, leave should generally be granted (see, Brewster v Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 185 AD2d 653). Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking to amend the complaint to add new theories of recovery is not sufficient to warrant denial of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hinkley v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Brewster v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Walker v. Pepsico, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schramm v. SpottswoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 2012
- Cove Properties, Inc. v. Walter Trent Marina, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1999
- Smelts v. MeloniNew York Supreme Court · 2004
- Kladstrup v. Westfall Health Care Center, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1999
- Lupo v. Board of Assessors of HuronNew York Supreme Court · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.