GREENSTONE ROBERTS ADVERTISING INC v. BERNARD HODES ADVERTISING INC (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

GREENSTONE ROBERTS ADVERTISING, INC., respondent, v. BERNARD HODES ADVERTISING, INC., et al., appellants.

Decided: April 26, 1999

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ANITA R. FLORIO and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

Davis & Gilbert, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael C. Lasky, Andrew D. Herz, and Robert H. Cohen of counsel), for appellants. Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Lois Carter Schlissel and Robert N. Zausmer of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 11, 1998, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add a fourth counterclaim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the length of the defendants' delay in moving to amend their answer, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiff, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion (see, Tricarico v. B & B Equipment Co., 249 A.D.2d 296, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299; Matter of Goggins, 231 A.D.2d 634, 647 N.Y.S.2d 804).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law