Legal Opinion

Chichilnisky v. Trustees of Columbia University

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

Decided March 13, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Regardless of whether certain letters exchanged between counsel constituted a binding stipulation disposing of the issues presented on appeal, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the branch of plaintiffs motion which sought leave to amend the first amended complaint to add a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, to the extent she *389sought leave to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend was made six years after the action was commenced, and after extensive discovery was finally complete. Plaintiff failed to offer any reasonable…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Moon v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  3. Jablonski v. County of ErieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  4. Prince v. O'BrienAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Panasia Estate, Inc. v. BrocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  2. B.B.C.F.D., S.A. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  3. Cafe Lughnasa Inc. v. A&R Kalimian LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
  4. Charles v. SuvannavejhNew York Supreme Court · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API