Legal Opinion
NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 27, 1990PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered on March 2, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve a second amended complaint and petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Although, as plaintiff correctly notes, CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend a complaint shall be freely granted *302(Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957), nevertheless, this court has held that leave to amend a complaint is not granted upon mere request without a proper showing. Rather, in determining whether to grant leave to amend, a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- East Asiatic Co. v. CorashAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
- Brennan v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3Cited by5 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Mendler v. Federal InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1993
- NAB Construction Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. New York City Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Westinghouse v. NYC TR. AUTH.New York Court of Appeals · 1993