Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, Named in the Relevant Escrow Agreements as Manufacturer's & Traders Bank, Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, O'Brien & Gere Technical Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Fru-Con/Fluor Daniel Joint Venture, Defendant-Respondent.
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of O'Brien & Gere Technical Services, Inc. (defendant) seeking leave to amend its answer after its motion for summary judgment was denied, and after the cross motion of defendant Fru-Con/Fluor Daniel Joint Venture (Joint Venture) for summary judgment was granted following an appeal by Joint Venture to this Court (Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 1002, 757 N.Y.S.2d 404). Although leave to amend should be freely granted, it is properly denied where the proposed amendment is lacking in merit (see Christiano v. Chiarenza, 1 A.D.3d 1039, 767 N.Y.S.2d 377; Fingerlakes Chiropractic v. Maggio, 269 A.D.2d 790, 791, 703 N.Y.S.2d 632). Here, the proposed amendments concerning the defenses of waiver and judicial estoppel are lacking in merit (see generally Enright v. Nationwide Ins. [appeal No. 2], 295 A.D.2d 980, 743 N.Y.S.2d 786; Abramovich v. Harris, 227 A.D.2d 1000, 643 N.Y.S.2d 811). Further, defendant failed to raise those defenses when its motion for summary judgment and Joint Venture's cross motion for summary judgment were before the court two years earlier, and defendant has failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Jablonski v. County of Erie, 286 A.D.2d 927, 928, 730 N.Y.S.2d 626).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 14, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)