Legal Opinion
Charleson v. City of Long Beach
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 30, 2002PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*778In the absence of surprise or prejudice to the opposing party, leave to amend a complaint is to be freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; Dal Youn Chung v Farberov, 285 AD2d 524). Here, however, the plaintiffs’ proposed fourth cause of action, alleging violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (18 USC § 1962), was not adequately pleaded and is plainly lacking in merit (see Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636; 136 E. 56th St. Owners v Darnet Realty Assoc., 248 AD2d 327, 328; Schuler v Board of Educ. of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- United States v. Private Sanitation Industry Ass'n of NassauDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1992
- Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Chung v. FarberovAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- 136 East 56th Street Owners, Inc. v. Darnet Realty AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3Cited by6 opinions
- DeLouise v. S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Ruddock v. Boland Rentals, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Jenal v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Paolano v. Southside HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Sealy v. Clifton L.L.C.New York Surrogate's Court · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.