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.
EDP MEDICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 2, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was to amend the verified complaint to increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the first cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that an application for leave to amend a pleading is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and that court's determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Sherman v. Claire Mfg. Co., 239 A.D.2d 487, 657 N.Y.S.2d 453; Leibowitz v. Plaza 400 Owners' Corp., 226 A.D.2d 681, 641 N.Y.S.2d 718; Beuschel v. Malm, 114 A.D.2d 569, 494 N.Y.S.2d 185). Here, the motion to amend was made some 14 years after the commencement of the action and sought to increase the ad damnum clause of the first cause of action from $2,500,000 to $16,140,234. Moreover, the proposed amendment would have permitted the plaintiff to recover damages under the first cause of action based on claims arising from a separate contract that was the basis of the third cause of action which was dismissed in 1987 (see, EDP Med. Computer Sys. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 149 A.D.2d 563, 540 N.Y.S.2d 18). Inasmuch as we agree with the Supreme Court that the proposed amendment is patently lacking in merit and that the motion to amend was inordinately and unreasonably delayed, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of that branch of the appellant's motion which was to amend the ad damnum clause of the first cause of action (see, e.g., Leibowitz v. Plaza 400 Owners' Corp., 226 A.D.2d 681, 641 N.Y.S.2d 718; Caruso v. Anpro, Ltd., 215 A.D.2d 713, 627 N.Y.S.2d 72; Posner v. Central Synagogue, 202 A.D.2d 284, 609 N.Y.S.2d 195; Scott v. General Motors Corp., 202 A.D.2d 570, 609 N.Y.S.2d 252).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: November 23, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)