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.
JOHN THOMAS LANDERS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ( [FELA] 45 USC § 51 et seq.), seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he fell on stairs located at defendant's property. He subsequently moved for leave to amend the complaint by adding an additional defendant and a cause of action seeking damages for spinal injuries allegedly caused by long-term exposure to vibration. Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion.
It is well settled that “[l]eave [to amend a pleading] shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025[b] ), and “[t]he decision to allow or disallow the amendment is committed to the court's discretion” (Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959). A court
“ ‘should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face’ “ (Agway, Inc. v. Williams, 185 A.D.2d 636, 636; see Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229). We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion in this case, particularly in light of the “more lenient standard for determining negligence and causation in a FELA action” (McCabe v. CSX Transp., Inc., 27 AD3d 1150, 1151 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: CA 09-01211
Decided: February 11, 2010
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)