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.
SRN CORPORATION, d/b/a Sarah R. Neuman Nursing Home, Appellant, v. Mary GLASS, etc., Respondent.
In an action denominated as an action for a judgment declaring that a resident of the plaintiff nursing home is eligible for medical assistance in the sum of $64,990.08, for services provided by the nursing home from May 1, 1993, until August 31, 1994, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered October 4, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and, based upon the amended answer, granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
Although leave to amend an answer should be freely given, such a motion should be denied where, as here, the substance of the proposed amended answer lacks merit (see, ICC Bridgeport Ltd. Partnership v. Primrose Dev. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 417, 633 N.Y.S.2d 571). The plaintiff's cause of action sounds in breach of contract. Thus, contrary to the defendant's first proposed additional affirmative defense, the plaintiff is not bound by the four-month Statute of Limitations (see, Long Beach Mem. Nursing Home v. D'Elia, 108 A.D.2d 901, 485 N.Y.S.2d 785). Furthermore, the other additional, proposed defenses, that the plaintiff nursing home lacks standing to bring this action and that it has failed to present a justiciable controversy, are also without merit (see, e.g., Matter of Peninsula Gen. Nursing Home v. Sugarman, 44 N.Y.2d 909, 407 N.Y.S.2d 697, 379 N.E.2d 223; Long Beach Mem. Nursing Home v. D'Elia, supra).
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 24, 1997
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)