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.
Vanessa Campbell, appellant, v. Genesis Contractors, Inc., respondent.
Submitted-September 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated January 11, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer to interpose the affirmative defense of release.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to serve an amended pleading should be freely given upon such terms as are just. Whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion (see Ingrami v. Rovner, 45 AD3d 806; Keating v. Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 44 AD3d 623), and leave to amend will generally be granted as long as the opponent is not surprised or prejudiced by the proposed amendment, and the proposed amendment is not patently devoid of merit (see AYW Networks v Teleport Communications Group, 309 A.D.2d 724; Charleson v. City of Long Beach, 297 A.D.2d 777).
In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion for leave to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defense of release. Defense counsel provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking leave to amend the answer, and the defense sought to be interposed is not patently devoid of merit. In addition, since the plaintiff was aware of the settlement and release of the prior litigation involving the same claims as raised in this action, she could not claim either surprise or prejudice as a result of the amendment.
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2010-01286 (Index No. 2894 /07)
Decided: September 28, 2010
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)