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 C. Ricchezza, appellant, v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al., respondents.
Submitted-December 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 3, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the answer to add the defense of statute of limitations.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, “defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Konik Indus., 249 A.D.2d 744, 744; see Complete Mgt., Inc. v. Rubenstein, 74 AD3d 722, 723; Ingrami v. Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808; Nunez v. Mousouras, 21 AD3d 355, 356). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to amend the answer to add a statute of limitations defense. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay between the service of the answer and the instant motion for leave to serve an amended answer (see CPLR 3025[b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935; Sindle v. New York City Tr. Auth., 33 N.Y.2d 293, 296-297; Sayers v. Albicocco, 298 A.D.2d 572, 573; Henderson v. Gulati, 270 A.D.2d 308, 309; Hickey v. Hutton, 182 A.D.2d 801, 802). Furthermore, the evidence submitted in support of the motion indicated that the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit (see Hines v. City of New York, 43 AD3d 869).
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: 2010-03096 (Index No. 22798 /07)
Decided: December 21, 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)